Helmet Laws
By: Ben Spencer
Should helmet laws be motivated by scientific evidence or by groups of people that can pay lobbyist the most money? Some bikers would say it should be personal preference and not laws that make them wear helmets. Most of the scientific studies show that motorcycles in general are a more dangerous form of transportation than cars and trucks. These studies also show that individuals involved in motorcycles accidents had less serious injuries if they wore helmets than those riders not wearing helmets. These facts alone show the importance of wearing helmets. In addition to fewer head injuries, helmets should be required to help decrease cost to anyone involved in paying for healthcare.
Although it is proven that helmets are important in motorcycle safety, there is also proof that individuals wearing seatbelts in automobiles have less of a risk of severe injury and death when involved in an accident. It is the law in most states that everyone in the vehicle is buckled up. It is also the law that small children be buckled up in a car seat that meet state regulations. So why is it that bikers have freedom of choice but those in automobiles are made to “click it or ticket”?
If motorcyclist are given freedom of choice as to whether or not to wear a helmet, should a law enforcing other “riders” of vehicles to wear helmets be enforced? There are studies out that show the number of individuals operating all terrain vehicles wearing helmets have a better outcome when involved in accidents than those that don’t wear helmets.
Motorcycle and bicycle accidents are frequent and often unavoidable. It is often the cyclists are difficult to see when they use busy roadways. When the accidents do occur, head injuries are very likely to occur when there is no protection. Scientific research has been done to prove helmet use minimizes head injuries by as much as 88%. Many cyclists even admit that the use of a helmet “saved their lives” when involved in an accident, but unfortunately when given the choice most cyclist chose not to wear helmets.
Opposition to enforcing helmet laws comes primarily from biker groups and associations. Bikers argue that helmets should be optional and not mandatory. They simply don’t want to be forced to wear them. They also feel wearing helmets is unattractive and “un cool”. More importantly bikers think that helmets are uncomfortable and cause neck pain and injury because of the stress the helmets put o0n their necks due to the weight of the helmet.
Currently there is not a universal law that covers all motorcycle riders in the state of Kentucky. There is a partial law that requires 20 years and younger to wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. Kentucky’s ATV helmet requirement states that riders under 16years old must wear a helmet at al times and riders 16 years of age and older are required to wear helmets on public property. The law also states that motorcycle riders that are 21 years and older can have the choice of wearing no helmet if they can prove they have medical insurance coverage. There are currently no required bicycle helmet laws although it seems that more bicyclist wear helmets than motorcyclist.
Almost 50% of motorcycle crash victims do not have private health insurance coverage so most of their medical bills are paid by medical and other government funds theirs puts a huge drain on healthcare and on state and federal budgets, many times it is not just the cost of medical care immediately following the crash. Traumatic brain injuries are permanent disabilities and require lifelong medical care. If helmets were a requirement rather than a personal choice, there would be fewer head injuries and a decrease in cost to anyone paying for healthcare.
By: Ben Spencer
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Hybrid Cars, Are they really worth it?
As being “green” becomes more and more important to the nation, people are trying various methods to reduce their global impact on the environment. One method that has been popularized by the media is the shift from conventional cars to hybrids. A hybrid car uses a small gas engine that is supplemented by electric motors. These cars produce very low levels of emissions, and in some situations provide a better alternative than a conventional car. But many hybrid owners are finding out that their cars don’t always live up to the claims and expectations associated with hybrid cars. Claims of increased savings from buying less fuel, better mileage, tax breaks, and other incentives of ownership have been well reported by the media and have gained acceptance and considerable interest with the general public, but as time goes on owners find that they are not seeing the proof to back up those claims.
Hybrid cars work by supplementing their small gas engines with electric motors powered by a battery pack. These electric motors help to supplement the smaller gas engine at times when more power is needed such as passing on the highway or starting from a complete stop. When stopped at a red light or stop sign the car’s electronics automatically shut down the gas engine to reduce pollution from idling, and when the driver begins to move again the electric motors start the car off, and after a certain point the gas engine is brought back online. It is because of this system along with the smaller, lighter, engine and better aerodynamic elements that allow these vehicles to achieve the low emission levels and high gas mileage, which are the main selling points of these cars. To most this sounds like the ideal solution to help lessen pollution and ease our demands for fossil fuels, but in most cases I believe that a conventionally powered car is a better option. When on the interstate or local highways, where a driver rarely needs to stop, a small fuel efficient car is better suited. Contrary to popular belief most of the time the hybrid’s gas engine is providing the power to drive the wheels while the electric drive train is dormant. This makes a hybrid no different than any other comparable car in most driving situations. Hybrids do offer better gas mileage, but normally the difference between a hybrid and a conventional car (often the same model but without the hybrid option) is only around two or three mile per gallon. Since most people commute long distances to and from work a hybrid owner would not get the full benefits that the car offers.
On the other hand, if a person lives in or does a majority of their driving in a city, a hybrid would be the better option. When driving in or near a city the most common driving situation that a person would encounter is stop and go traffic. This is where hybrid cars are in their element. With a conventionally powered car city driving is where drivers see the worst efficiency and the most wear and tear on a vehicle. Unlike a hybrid, a conventional car relies solely on its gas engine to get it moving and it is this cycle of starting and stopping that reduces fuel economy and places a lot of stress and wear on the engine and drive train. . Another disadvantage that plagues conventional cars is when they are idling while in traffic or when stopped. This wastes untold gallons of fuel every year and also contributes to wear and tear on the engine, because if the car is not moving the cooling system is not working as efficiently and prolonged idling can and does lead to serious engine problems as the car gets older. In these driving situations a hybrid is the best option. When in traffic or at a stop light the hybrid’s computer automatically shuts down the gas engine which saves fuel and reduces emissions. When the car resumes motion the electric motor starts the car off and once a certain point is reached the gas engine is brought back online to power the car and recharge the batteries. But all these benefits come at a price.
I feel another issue that plagues hybrid cars is the costs associated with them. Obviously, since hybrid cars have more advanced electronics and a second drive train (the electric drive system) those costs are going to be factored into the sticker price. That is a give in, no matter what the product is the more advanced it is the more it is going to cost. The problem lies in the “premium pricing” that many dealers add to the cost of the car above the sticker price on the windshield. This “premium” pricing is brought about by the low number of hybrids being produced, which is directly related to consumer demand. Once hybrid technology can be better utilized and made affordable to the average consumer the demand for these cars will increase, but until the price for these cars can be brought down to the point where it is actually a viable option for the average driver the full benefits that these cars offer, both environmental and monetary, will not be utilized to their full potential. Another way that I feel many consumers have been misled is in the reported savings from buying less gas. Studies have shown that it often takes years for a hybrid owner to see any long term savings in regards to money spent on gas. This is partly because of the high cost of the car offsets the savings on fuel until the car is paid off, and it is at that point where a hybrid owner can begin to see long term savings.
There is no doubt that hybrid cars offer a great opportunity for a person to help reduce the impact that humanity has on the environment, and one will get no argument from the writer on this issue. But what is in question is the true effect that hybrids can have. In many driving situations a conventionally powered fuel efficient car shows only a slight difference in fuel efficiency when compared to a hybrid (Hybrid). So a new car buyer can get a car that has close to the efficiency of a hybrid, but for thousands less. Hybrids have their strong points and areas that they do in fact, surpass conventional cars. Hybrid technology is only in its second generation and as technology improves these cars will be better suited to the average person, which is what is limiting these cars. As the technology improves and becomes more efficient in more than just city driving these cars will be more widely accepted by consumers. Hybrids are a great alternative for some, but for hybrids to be a real benefit to not only the environment but to the average driver, they need to become a viable option for everyone.
By Adam Wilck
Hybrid cars work by supplementing their small gas engines with electric motors powered by a battery pack. These electric motors help to supplement the smaller gas engine at times when more power is needed such as passing on the highway or starting from a complete stop. When stopped at a red light or stop sign the car’s electronics automatically shut down the gas engine to reduce pollution from idling, and when the driver begins to move again the electric motors start the car off, and after a certain point the gas engine is brought back online. It is because of this system along with the smaller, lighter, engine and better aerodynamic elements that allow these vehicles to achieve the low emission levels and high gas mileage, which are the main selling points of these cars. To most this sounds like the ideal solution to help lessen pollution and ease our demands for fossil fuels, but in most cases I believe that a conventionally powered car is a better option. When on the interstate or local highways, where a driver rarely needs to stop, a small fuel efficient car is better suited. Contrary to popular belief most of the time the hybrid’s gas engine is providing the power to drive the wheels while the electric drive train is dormant. This makes a hybrid no different than any other comparable car in most driving situations. Hybrids do offer better gas mileage, but normally the difference between a hybrid and a conventional car (often the same model but without the hybrid option) is only around two or three mile per gallon. Since most people commute long distances to and from work a hybrid owner would not get the full benefits that the car offers.
On the other hand, if a person lives in or does a majority of their driving in a city, a hybrid would be the better option. When driving in or near a city the most common driving situation that a person would encounter is stop and go traffic. This is where hybrid cars are in their element. With a conventionally powered car city driving is where drivers see the worst efficiency and the most wear and tear on a vehicle. Unlike a hybrid, a conventional car relies solely on its gas engine to get it moving and it is this cycle of starting and stopping that reduces fuel economy and places a lot of stress and wear on the engine and drive train. . Another disadvantage that plagues conventional cars is when they are idling while in traffic or when stopped. This wastes untold gallons of fuel every year and also contributes to wear and tear on the engine, because if the car is not moving the cooling system is not working as efficiently and prolonged idling can and does lead to serious engine problems as the car gets older. In these driving situations a hybrid is the best option. When in traffic or at a stop light the hybrid’s computer automatically shuts down the gas engine which saves fuel and reduces emissions. When the car resumes motion the electric motor starts the car off and once a certain point is reached the gas engine is brought back online to power the car and recharge the batteries. But all these benefits come at a price.
I feel another issue that plagues hybrid cars is the costs associated with them. Obviously, since hybrid cars have more advanced electronics and a second drive train (the electric drive system) those costs are going to be factored into the sticker price. That is a give in, no matter what the product is the more advanced it is the more it is going to cost. The problem lies in the “premium pricing” that many dealers add to the cost of the car above the sticker price on the windshield. This “premium” pricing is brought about by the low number of hybrids being produced, which is directly related to consumer demand. Once hybrid technology can be better utilized and made affordable to the average consumer the demand for these cars will increase, but until the price for these cars can be brought down to the point where it is actually a viable option for the average driver the full benefits that these cars offer, both environmental and monetary, will not be utilized to their full potential. Another way that I feel many consumers have been misled is in the reported savings from buying less gas. Studies have shown that it often takes years for a hybrid owner to see any long term savings in regards to money spent on gas. This is partly because of the high cost of the car offsets the savings on fuel until the car is paid off, and it is at that point where a hybrid owner can begin to see long term savings.
There is no doubt that hybrid cars offer a great opportunity for a person to help reduce the impact that humanity has on the environment, and one will get no argument from the writer on this issue. But what is in question is the true effect that hybrids can have. In many driving situations a conventionally powered fuel efficient car shows only a slight difference in fuel efficiency when compared to a hybrid (Hybrid). So a new car buyer can get a car that has close to the efficiency of a hybrid, but for thousands less. Hybrids have their strong points and areas that they do in fact, surpass conventional cars. Hybrid technology is only in its second generation and as technology improves these cars will be better suited to the average person, which is what is limiting these cars. As the technology improves and becomes more efficient in more than just city driving these cars will be more widely accepted by consumers. Hybrids are a great alternative for some, but for hybrids to be a real benefit to not only the environment but to the average driver, they need to become a viable option for everyone.
By Adam Wilck
The Dangers of Tabloids
It is a common act to flip through a tabloid magazine while standing in line at the grocery store. A person will subconsciously look at its pages and ignore every message it is giving through the models in it. Tabloids and magazines have created the false sense that for a woman to be beautiful, she must be thin. This misconception is the reason why today women of all ages have so many insecurities. Therefore, change in the way women are depicted in the media is needed, and there should be efforts made so that women of every size and shape are represented in the pages of magazines rather than only the stick- thin models.
Many magazine editors and Fashion designers would fight this point that what is printed in a magazine is not meant to create chaos to all the women in the world. They would argue that thin models are without many of the curves an average sized woman would have, and therefore, it is much easier for clothes on the runway to be fitted on them. Also many magazine editors would cover up any accusation of harmful propaganda due to dietary supplements being advertised in its pages by saying it’s the advertising business that sells space for a company to use up. Also as a fashion or women’s magazine, they encourage healthy lifestyles which would include reducing the amount of excess fat on a person’s body.
The reason I believe this portrayal of women in media is problematic is because the tabloids show women as skinny Barbie doll “look-alikes”. In the world today this is unrealistic and unfair. It is fine if you are thin, but the world cannot assume all women even have the capability to become that thin even if they wanted to. Human beings grow to be all different shapes and sizes, so it is unrealistic to believe all women must fit a certain standard just to be thought of as beautiful. “An average woman in today’s [society] is 5’4” and [usually] around 130 to 140 pounds” (ParentingTeens). Based on this calculation, it is unfair to declare all average sized women are not beautiful due to their weight in proportion to their height. According to tabloids, a truly beautiful woman looks like a runway model which on “average is 5’11” and about 115 pounds” (ParentingTeens). This would mean only two percent of all women living today could be classified as beautiful because “around ninety-eight percent of women are larger than the average super model” (ParentingTeens).
The second reason the tabloid’s portrayal of women is misleading is because the tabloids create a false sense and definition of what beauty is in modern society. The pages of magazines are full of skeletal-looking models who show off lose fitting clothing and the latest trends. Covers of tabloids and magazines alike criticize celebrities for being either too skinny or too fat. And everywhere a person looks, there is another advertisement on a weight loss supplement or fad diet that is sure to make a person thin and trim in just weeks. This stress put on young women is developing worries of weight in younger and younger girls as the years go on. “Eighty-one percent of ten-year old girls have a fear of becoming fat sometime in their life” (ParentingTeens). There is also a shocking statistic that “ninety-one percent of women college students have tried to lose weight by dieting while living on the college campus” (ParentingTeens). This constant publicity has created a false definition of beauty in a form of a tall thin model. The true definition of the word beauty is “a lovely person or thing” (Merriam-Webster). There was no definition anywhere that stated that beauty was meant to be thin or light weight, so beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
The third reason I believe women of all shapes and sizes should be represented in the pages of magazines and tabloids is because it will eventually create a new found confidence in women of the modern age, and hopefully encourage a healthier life style in young girls. Women are so easily influenced when looking at a magazine full of stick-thin models. They see that as a sign that this is how the world wants them to look. But if magazines were to ditch the propaganda for diet supplements and exchange them with local gyms and work out facilities in cities, women would realize that being fit and healthy is just as beautiful as being thin. If young girls could look through a fashion magazine and see the glamour that every sized woman can have with the right outfit that would prove to them that you can look beautiful in your own skin. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, and all women can represent beauty in different ways. Now all magazines need to do is market this idea that beauty is everywhere and not just on the runway.
The fourth and final reason why I think this change in media is possible is because we are the future leaders of this country and the world. As the upcoming leading generation in our society, we should not only demand change but also form the right to set the standard of beauty for ourselves. Media viewers do not need a magazine telling them how they need to look to be thought of as a beautiful person. No runway model or definition in a dictionary can tell the women of this world what true beauty is, because there is no definition. Human beings were created to be different and look unique from one another. So in theory, it is impossible to categorize all women to look the same. So by representing all the different forms of beauty in the pages of a magazine, no definition ever has to be made.
Some form of change needs to take place as soon as possible to stop this crime from occurring any longer in the society we live in today. Years ago, women embraced curves, and plumpness was a sign of wealth and status. I am not saying we need to make that radical of a change, but magazines do need to start including more well-rounded groups of women on to their pages. Women of all shapes, size, ages, and ethnicities should be in some way honored. If a magazine or tabloid wants to target the female population as its viewers, then those magazines should do the courtesy of representing there viewers in the pages rather than only unrealistic runway models.
Work Cited
“Beauty.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online.
2 November 2009
"Eating Disorders Statistics." About.com:Teen. The New York Times Company. Web.
2 Nov. 2009. http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/eatingdisorders/a/eatingdisorder5.htm.
BY: Jordan Turner
Lower the Legal Drinking Age
Even though there is strong objection by law enforcement officers, a movement is being made to lower the legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen. The United States is one of the only countries whose legal drinking age is above eighteen. Seventy-eight percent of Americans are against this. However, I believe that lowering the legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen would have major positive effects.
One reason I believe the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because drinking is seen as “forbidden” among young adults. Therefore, high school kids and college students under the age of twenty-one are more likely to be binge drinkers. Since students don’t know for sure when they’ll be able to drink again, they try to drink as much as they can and get as drunk as possible. Among drinkers, thirty-two percent of under-age compared to twenty-four percent of legal age are heavy drinkers. Among college students, twenty-two percent of all students under twenty-one compared to eighteen percent over twenty-one years old are binge drinkers. According to the Institutes of Medicine, ninety percent of alcohol that is consumed by underage drinkers is during binge drinking. Between 1993 and 2001, eighteen to twenty year olds showed the largest increase in binge drinking episodes among Americans. Statistics clearly show that the twenty-one year old legal drinking age is not working.
The second reason I believe the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because a person is considered an adult at the age of eighteen. You can vote, adopt children, serve on a jury, and serve in the military. But despite all of these important responsibilities you are trusted with, you cannot buy or drink alcohol. This fact makes it not very surprising that a huge number of young people choose to drink under the age of twenty-one. If one might risk their life in war, why shouldn’t they be able to enjoy a beer?
Some opposers of the idea claim that the legal drinking age of twenty-one has saved more lives in vehicle fatalities. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, safety belts and air bags saved 18,000 lives in 2004, while the legal drinking age saved less than 2,000 lives. If you take a quick glance at the graphs, you will see that there has been a decline in traffic fatalities. However, the decline began in 1982, which is two years before the law changed. In addition, the decline has happened in every age group, not just people within the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. It is very likely that the decline in vehicle fatalities is caused by an increase in seat belt use, airbags, and safer cars.
The third reason I believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because even after 25 years of having a twenty-one year old drinking age, 5,000 young people under the age of twenty-one die of alcohol-related crashes every year. More than sixty percent of those deaths are a result of accidental injury, homicide, and suicide. Clearly, the legal drinking age of twenty-one is not working.
In conclusion, the legal drinking age should be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen because of the fact that minors are more likely to be binge drinkers, one is considered an adult at the age of eighteen, and because of the fact that the legal drinking age isn’t decreasing the number of alcohol-related fatalities. Young people need to be taught about responsible drinking at a younger age so alcohol-related fatalities can be prevented in the future. This can be done by lowering the legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen.
By Kelsey Johnson
One reason I believe the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because drinking is seen as “forbidden” among young adults. Therefore, high school kids and college students under the age of twenty-one are more likely to be binge drinkers. Since students don’t know for sure when they’ll be able to drink again, they try to drink as much as they can and get as drunk as possible. Among drinkers, thirty-two percent of under-age compared to twenty-four percent of legal age are heavy drinkers. Among college students, twenty-two percent of all students under twenty-one compared to eighteen percent over twenty-one years old are binge drinkers. According to the Institutes of Medicine, ninety percent of alcohol that is consumed by underage drinkers is during binge drinking. Between 1993 and 2001, eighteen to twenty year olds showed the largest increase in binge drinking episodes among Americans. Statistics clearly show that the twenty-one year old legal drinking age is not working.
The second reason I believe the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because a person is considered an adult at the age of eighteen. You can vote, adopt children, serve on a jury, and serve in the military. But despite all of these important responsibilities you are trusted with, you cannot buy or drink alcohol. This fact makes it not very surprising that a huge number of young people choose to drink under the age of twenty-one. If one might risk their life in war, why shouldn’t they be able to enjoy a beer?
Some opposers of the idea claim that the legal drinking age of twenty-one has saved more lives in vehicle fatalities. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, safety belts and air bags saved 18,000 lives in 2004, while the legal drinking age saved less than 2,000 lives. If you take a quick glance at the graphs, you will see that there has been a decline in traffic fatalities. However, the decline began in 1982, which is two years before the law changed. In addition, the decline has happened in every age group, not just people within the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. It is very likely that the decline in vehicle fatalities is caused by an increase in seat belt use, airbags, and safer cars.
The third reason I believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because even after 25 years of having a twenty-one year old drinking age, 5,000 young people under the age of twenty-one die of alcohol-related crashes every year. More than sixty percent of those deaths are a result of accidental injury, homicide, and suicide. Clearly, the legal drinking age of twenty-one is not working.
In conclusion, the legal drinking age should be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen because of the fact that minors are more likely to be binge drinkers, one is considered an adult at the age of eighteen, and because of the fact that the legal drinking age isn’t decreasing the number of alcohol-related fatalities. Young people need to be taught about responsible drinking at a younger age so alcohol-related fatalities can be prevented in the future. This can be done by lowering the legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen.
By Kelsey Johnson
Abortion and pschological effects.
Abortion has taken a head on collision with today’s society. Used to back in the day Abortion was looked down upon and was even illegal. But today it is considered legal and the first thing that is brought to a young girl’s attention when she gets pregnant in high school. Society looks at abortion as just another “thing” that women are using to get out of problems they cannot handle; children. But what these women don’t understand is that having an abortion isn’t going to make everything all better. As a matter a fact it can actually make matters worse. After abortion a minimum of nineteen percent of women have suffered from PTSD, which is a psychological problem. Therefore I disagree with abortion and believe that it should still be considered illegal.
One effect abortion know to have on the mother is suicide. Sixty percent of all women who have had abortions report suicidal intentions. Twenty eight percent actually attempt suicide. Suicidal attempts and thoughts have become more and more common amongst adolescents. They get dangerously depressed and think that what they did was wrong. Young teen girls figure that if they were to ever tell a future man in their lives what they did they would not want them; they feel that they will have no life after, due to the abortion. I believe teens today see abortion as an escape route. They think “oh if I get an abortion I will still be able to go to college and become successful without having to hassle with a baby.” But after the abortion I think most of them wish they wouldn’t have actually gone through with it. That they wish instead of crying themselves to sleep because of guilt they were rocking their crying child to sleep. Most girls think of suicide as a way to reconnect with the child that they killed.
Abortion doesn’t have only have psychological effects on just the mother it also effects the family. My grandmother is evidence of just this. My mom was fifteen when she became pregnant by a man that she hardly even knew. My grandmother was a single mom at the time with two children, barely making it; she wanted the best for her daughters. She wanted them to have everything that she didn’t have as a child herself. So when she found out about my mom being pregnant she forced her to have an abortion, thinking that she would be able to live a normal life and not have to have the burden of being a teen mother. To this very day my grandma tells us all the time that she regrets making this choice. My mom began using drugs at the age of 13, and now my grandma believes that if she would have made her have that child at fifteen she would have grown up and realized her mistakes. So instead of my mom being burdened with teen motherhood, my grandmother is burdened with the guilt of killing her first grandchild. She prays everyday that god will forgive her for the mistake she made.
Another effect abortion has on mothers is it can lead to divorce or relationship problems. After having an abortion many women have a difficult time forming long lasting bonds with people, or even holding onto the bonds they already have. Divorce is very likely to happen since the mother would have a low self esteem, which causes sexual dysfunction; communication goes from talking everyday to not talking at all.
Just the other day I had a conversation with a group of people about abortion leading to depression. One person in the group said “that abortion is a decision that woman make, they know the consequences, they know the risks. How can we tell that their not just “acting” like their depressed just to attention because they want people to feel bad for them?” Honestly this person did have a point. But then again how can you tell if anyone has emotional problems or psychological problems? Abortion is just one of the many leading causes to this psychological problem, many women have reported to regretting what they did after having an abortion. Many have turned to Alcohol to sooth their problems and some have even turned to substance abuse. Just because we can’t see it on the surface does not mean that these women are not hurting inside.
Eleanor Ramsey has written and compiled a series of true stories of post abortion stories. This story stood out the most to me. “Thirteen year old Stacie, came home from school one day, when she met her neighbor on the way, her neighbor told her that her mother was out killing her baby at an abortion clinic. After this Stacie refused to go to school, and refused to listen to her parents. She begged her mom to have another child; her mother was unable to conceive again. Soon Stacie started dating a sixteen year old boy and after that she became pregnant. By having this child and how she had begged and begged for her mother to have another child shows that Stacie grieved for the brother or sister that her mother had killed. She felt that she could get rid of the grief she had by having a child of her own.” (Ramsey) page 33. By reading this story it proved to me more and more that abortion just isn’t worth it. It can affect the mother, and the family. Even after researching the opposing side of my argument I still find no reason why abortion should be considered legal. It leads to many tragic events. Psychological problems are just one of the many events.
One effect abortion know to have on the mother is suicide. Sixty percent of all women who have had abortions report suicidal intentions. Twenty eight percent actually attempt suicide. Suicidal attempts and thoughts have become more and more common amongst adolescents. They get dangerously depressed and think that what they did was wrong. Young teen girls figure that if they were to ever tell a future man in their lives what they did they would not want them; they feel that they will have no life after, due to the abortion. I believe teens today see abortion as an escape route. They think “oh if I get an abortion I will still be able to go to college and become successful without having to hassle with a baby.” But after the abortion I think most of them wish they wouldn’t have actually gone through with it. That they wish instead of crying themselves to sleep because of guilt they were rocking their crying child to sleep. Most girls think of suicide as a way to reconnect with the child that they killed.
Abortion doesn’t have only have psychological effects on just the mother it also effects the family. My grandmother is evidence of just this. My mom was fifteen when she became pregnant by a man that she hardly even knew. My grandmother was a single mom at the time with two children, barely making it; she wanted the best for her daughters. She wanted them to have everything that she didn’t have as a child herself. So when she found out about my mom being pregnant she forced her to have an abortion, thinking that she would be able to live a normal life and not have to have the burden of being a teen mother. To this very day my grandma tells us all the time that she regrets making this choice. My mom began using drugs at the age of 13, and now my grandma believes that if she would have made her have that child at fifteen she would have grown up and realized her mistakes. So instead of my mom being burdened with teen motherhood, my grandmother is burdened with the guilt of killing her first grandchild. She prays everyday that god will forgive her for the mistake she made.
Another effect abortion has on mothers is it can lead to divorce or relationship problems. After having an abortion many women have a difficult time forming long lasting bonds with people, or even holding onto the bonds they already have. Divorce is very likely to happen since the mother would have a low self esteem, which causes sexual dysfunction; communication goes from talking everyday to not talking at all.
Just the other day I had a conversation with a group of people about abortion leading to depression. One person in the group said “that abortion is a decision that woman make, they know the consequences, they know the risks. How can we tell that their not just “acting” like their depressed just to attention because they want people to feel bad for them?” Honestly this person did have a point. But then again how can you tell if anyone has emotional problems or psychological problems? Abortion is just one of the many leading causes to this psychological problem, many women have reported to regretting what they did after having an abortion. Many have turned to Alcohol to sooth their problems and some have even turned to substance abuse. Just because we can’t see it on the surface does not mean that these women are not hurting inside.
Eleanor Ramsey has written and compiled a series of true stories of post abortion stories. This story stood out the most to me. “Thirteen year old Stacie, came home from school one day, when she met her neighbor on the way, her neighbor told her that her mother was out killing her baby at an abortion clinic. After this Stacie refused to go to school, and refused to listen to her parents. She begged her mom to have another child; her mother was unable to conceive again. Soon Stacie started dating a sixteen year old boy and after that she became pregnant. By having this child and how she had begged and begged for her mother to have another child shows that Stacie grieved for the brother or sister that her mother had killed. She felt that she could get rid of the grief she had by having a child of her own.” (Ramsey) page 33. By reading this story it proved to me more and more that abortion just isn’t worth it. It can affect the mother, and the family. Even after researching the opposing side of my argument I still find no reason why abortion should be considered legal. It leads to many tragic events. Psychological problems are just one of the many events.
Who's the Best?
In the world of music many stars rise over the years, to be forever know as legends of what they do. Mozart, Bob Dylan, Eddie Van Halen, Elvis Presley, Neil Peart, all have been considered to be the greatest at what they do at one point in time. But in modern heavy metal music today, a great dispute is out as to who is the best drummer in the industry, with two of the top contenders being Lamb of God’s drummer Chris Adler, and Slipknot’s drummer Joey Jordison. I would argue that the answer is, without a doubt, Chris Adler.
There are many different qualities and characteristics that go into consideration when you’re deciding whom the better of two musicians are. Some of these include sound, performance, skill, technicality, style, and difficulty. With both Adler and Jordison having new albums come out within the last year, it has put a big spotlight on them, and made people wonder just who is better. Many would argue that Joey Jordison’s technical speed throughout Slipknot’s entire songs would make him the number one drummer in the world. It is undeniable, that Jordison does have some very difficult beats to play, due to their complexity and constant double bass drumming mixed with lightning speed. But Adler one-ups Jordison in the fact that, Adler’s drum fills, are near impossible to do. A drum fill is a transitional point in a song (like going from the verse to the chorus for instance) that is based around a drum change. The way that Adler arranges his fills are often beyond belief, throwing in insane patterns between his hands and feet at speeds that demand a second listen every time you hear the songs.
Also, Adler’s style is one that is hard to comprehend even after you see it. One of the biggest reasons that Adler has such a difficult style to match is because he is actually a left handed drummer, who plays on a right handed drum set, something that is rarely seen in the drumming world. Adler’s style truly shines during live performances with the band, in the sense that what you thought you heard on the cd, is actually so more complex than it seemed. It’s almost as if he’s just letting his arms explode from his body, and his feet are programmed to do their job flawlessly. His accuracy live is dead on, playing every beat as if it’s woven into his DNA, which assures you that what you hear on the cd’s is not product of fancy studio magic, it’s the real deal.
A third quality that sets Adler above and beyond many of the top heavy metal drummers of today, is his love for his fans and supporters. Many drummers who know that they’re famous, know they’re a big name musician, loose sight of the reason they became famous… their fans. But Adler never has. His humble personality keeps both his feet on the ground (and on his bass pedals) and his head where it should be. During any live show, if Adler gets a minute in between songs, he runs to the crowd, giving them high five’s and even a drumstick or two to some of the luckier audience members. This not only keeps him on excellent terms with his fans, but also makes the shows for the band he’s in much more interactive, which in turn keeps people wanting to always come back for more. It seems that Adler never turns down an interview, and always has a smile on his face. His personality makes people love him for more than his awesome drumming skills, which can be one of the most important qualities there is when it comes to being know as the “greatest” there is at something. And Adler’s combination of attributes set an even more promising future for him to become know as the best there is.
Every video you watch on YouTube, or on the television that has Adler in it, you get a feeling like you’re there, like you’ve know him all his life. And yet his skills never cease to amaze you as you watch him play. It doesn’t matter if it’s the first time you’ve heard the song, or the hundredth time, Chris Adler’s drumming style and presence has an uncanny effect of making you always want more, which is what makes him the best drummer there is in heavy metal.
Anthony Falcone
There are many different qualities and characteristics that go into consideration when you’re deciding whom the better of two musicians are. Some of these include sound, performance, skill, technicality, style, and difficulty. With both Adler and Jordison having new albums come out within the last year, it has put a big spotlight on them, and made people wonder just who is better. Many would argue that Joey Jordison’s technical speed throughout Slipknot’s entire songs would make him the number one drummer in the world. It is undeniable, that Jordison does have some very difficult beats to play, due to their complexity and constant double bass drumming mixed with lightning speed. But Adler one-ups Jordison in the fact that, Adler’s drum fills, are near impossible to do. A drum fill is a transitional point in a song (like going from the verse to the chorus for instance) that is based around a drum change. The way that Adler arranges his fills are often beyond belief, throwing in insane patterns between his hands and feet at speeds that demand a second listen every time you hear the songs.
Also, Adler’s style is one that is hard to comprehend even after you see it. One of the biggest reasons that Adler has such a difficult style to match is because he is actually a left handed drummer, who plays on a right handed drum set, something that is rarely seen in the drumming world. Adler’s style truly shines during live performances with the band, in the sense that what you thought you heard on the cd, is actually so more complex than it seemed. It’s almost as if he’s just letting his arms explode from his body, and his feet are programmed to do their job flawlessly. His accuracy live is dead on, playing every beat as if it’s woven into his DNA, which assures you that what you hear on the cd’s is not product of fancy studio magic, it’s the real deal.
A third quality that sets Adler above and beyond many of the top heavy metal drummers of today, is his love for his fans and supporters. Many drummers who know that they’re famous, know they’re a big name musician, loose sight of the reason they became famous… their fans. But Adler never has. His humble personality keeps both his feet on the ground (and on his bass pedals) and his head where it should be. During any live show, if Adler gets a minute in between songs, he runs to the crowd, giving them high five’s and even a drumstick or two to some of the luckier audience members. This not only keeps him on excellent terms with his fans, but also makes the shows for the band he’s in much more interactive, which in turn keeps people wanting to always come back for more. It seems that Adler never turns down an interview, and always has a smile on his face. His personality makes people love him for more than his awesome drumming skills, which can be one of the most important qualities there is when it comes to being know as the “greatest” there is at something. And Adler’s combination of attributes set an even more promising future for him to become know as the best there is.
Every video you watch on YouTube, or on the television that has Adler in it, you get a feeling like you’re there, like you’ve know him all his life. And yet his skills never cease to amaze you as you watch him play. It doesn’t matter if it’s the first time you’ve heard the song, or the hundredth time, Chris Adler’s drumming style and presence has an uncanny effect of making you always want more, which is what makes him the best drummer there is in heavy metal.
Anthony Falcone
Don't Blame the Media
It is obvious that the media has changed over the years. From “I Love Lucy” to “South Park”, most would say that it has changed in a harmful way, and that the media negatively influences the young adults in today’s society and therefore is the cause for many teenage problems such as teen pregnancies, teen crimes, teen drug abuse, and depression in teens. However, I do not believe that the change the media has made is to blame for these teen problems.
In today’s society sex appears everywhere—on television, in magazines, and even on the radio (Stossel, 1). In previous years sex it was considered not moral to show the amount of sex shown today. However, even though young people in the present are constantly exposed to sex, according to an article sponsored by ABC News, rates for both rape and teen birthrates have recently fallen (Stossel, 2). Pregnancy rates among teenage girls have also greatly declined (Stern, 1). The Centers for Disease Control confirms that since 1990 teen pregnancies went down forty percent and rates of teens that actually gave birth to a child dropped thirty percent (Sternheimer, 1). Karen Sternheimer, Ph.D. and sociologist at USC says in her article “Don’t Blame Pop Culture for Teen Misbehavior” that pregnancies that occurred in teens that viewed sexual shows on television out of the fifteen hundred teens surveyed was only about thirty-six (3). Rates of rape among young people under eighteen were said by the FBI to have also decreased by fifty-two percent (Sternheimer, 1).
People cannot blame the media for youth crimes either because crimes that are being committed by adolescence in the U.S. has been dropping. According to the FBI “rates of serious violent and property crime among youths under age eighteen plunged forty-nine percent” since 1990 (Sternheimer, 1). Since that 1990 mark, rates for crimes such as murder, serious assault, rape, and robbery committed by adolescence of the same age group have all dropped (Sternheimer, 1). The FBI reported that murder rates when down sixty-six percent, serious assault rates declined twenty-eight percent, rape rates decreased by fifty-two percent, and robbery rates fell thirty-two percent (Sternheimer, 1). Of one-thousand six hundred teens surveyed only thirty them said they both visited violent websites and committed a seriously violent act (Sternheimer, 3).
Television has positive influences on today’s youth (Barbour, 3). Advertisers have attempted to use television to help change the behaviors of young people in a positive way (Barbour, 3). The media has made “efforts to modify behaviors such as smoking, drunken driving, and even poor nutritional habits” through the television, radio, and even in some magazines (Barbour, 3). Attempts to change these behaviors are shown in anti-drug commercials like “Above the Influence”. These commercials are shown on TV, broadcasted on the radio, and are even in magazines such as “Cosmopolitan”. All those who hear or see these ads are told that their voice is the only one that matters and to use that voice to be above the influence of drugs. In television shows such as “16 and Pregnant” and “Sex Rehab” on MTV viewers are shown that there are consequences to sex. “16 and Pregnant” allows viewers to see that having a child at a young age is a very difficult thing to do whether you keep the child or give it up for adoption. “Sex Rehab” shows those who watch the show that sex has not only child bearing consequences but also emotional consequences.
Some might argue that the media allows things such as sex, drug abuse, and crimes to be exposed and because of that youths are shown these things. Marty Klein, Ph.D. and author of “America’s War on Sex” was quoted saying, “The truth is children think about sex whether we want them to or not, children think about sex. [They] don’t need [the media’s] help to think about sex” (Stossel, 2). I feel that this is true. Young adults don’t need the media’s help to think about sex, drugs, or crimes. They will think of these things on their own, so the media cannot be blamed for the actions or misbehaviors of adolescents.
In today’s society sex appears everywhere—on television, in magazines, and even on the radio (Stossel, 1). In previous years sex it was considered not moral to show the amount of sex shown today. However, even though young people in the present are constantly exposed to sex, according to an article sponsored by ABC News, rates for both rape and teen birthrates have recently fallen (Stossel, 2). Pregnancy rates among teenage girls have also greatly declined (Stern, 1). The Centers for Disease Control confirms that since 1990 teen pregnancies went down forty percent and rates of teens that actually gave birth to a child dropped thirty percent (Sternheimer, 1). Karen Sternheimer, Ph.D. and sociologist at USC says in her article “Don’t Blame Pop Culture for Teen Misbehavior” that pregnancies that occurred in teens that viewed sexual shows on television out of the fifteen hundred teens surveyed was only about thirty-six (3). Rates of rape among young people under eighteen were said by the FBI to have also decreased by fifty-two percent (Sternheimer, 1).
People cannot blame the media for youth crimes either because crimes that are being committed by adolescence in the U.S. has been dropping. According to the FBI “rates of serious violent and property crime among youths under age eighteen plunged forty-nine percent” since 1990 (Sternheimer, 1). Since that 1990 mark, rates for crimes such as murder, serious assault, rape, and robbery committed by adolescence of the same age group have all dropped (Sternheimer, 1). The FBI reported that murder rates when down sixty-six percent, serious assault rates declined twenty-eight percent, rape rates decreased by fifty-two percent, and robbery rates fell thirty-two percent (Sternheimer, 1). Of one-thousand six hundred teens surveyed only thirty them said they both visited violent websites and committed a seriously violent act (Sternheimer, 3).
Television has positive influences on today’s youth (Barbour, 3). Advertisers have attempted to use television to help change the behaviors of young people in a positive way (Barbour, 3). The media has made “efforts to modify behaviors such as smoking, drunken driving, and even poor nutritional habits” through the television, radio, and even in some magazines (Barbour, 3). Attempts to change these behaviors are shown in anti-drug commercials like “Above the Influence”. These commercials are shown on TV, broadcasted on the radio, and are even in magazines such as “Cosmopolitan”. All those who hear or see these ads are told that their voice is the only one that matters and to use that voice to be above the influence of drugs. In television shows such as “16 and Pregnant” and “Sex Rehab” on MTV viewers are shown that there are consequences to sex. “16 and Pregnant” allows viewers to see that having a child at a young age is a very difficult thing to do whether you keep the child or give it up for adoption. “Sex Rehab” shows those who watch the show that sex has not only child bearing consequences but also emotional consequences.
Some might argue that the media allows things such as sex, drug abuse, and crimes to be exposed and because of that youths are shown these things. Marty Klein, Ph.D. and author of “America’s War on Sex” was quoted saying, “The truth is children think about sex whether we want them to or not, children think about sex. [They] don’t need [the media’s] help to think about sex” (Stossel, 2). I feel that this is true. Young adults don’t need the media’s help to think about sex, drugs, or crimes. They will think of these things on their own, so the media cannot be blamed for the actions or misbehaviors of adolescents.
Trophy Generation
The Trophy Generation
In society today children are raised in an “everybody wins” culture, in an attempt to avoid the emotional pain of failure for those who aren’t as gifted as their peers. The educational system is suffering from this coddling of children, students expect A’s instead of earning them. Also since those children were never exposed to failure and criticism society has become hyper sensitive to everything that isn’t politically correct. The entitlement they feel is apparent in the number of ridiculous lawsuits that are filed everyday because their feelings were hurt. The United States is producing a “Trophy Generation”: Overconfident under achievers who will not measure up to the work ethic of past generations as well as breeding a society full of mediocrity with a false sense of entitlement and something needs to be done about this.
The United States has been producing the Trophy Generation for the past twenty years and the way children were coddled and raised in the “everybody wins” atmosphere is about to affect the work place in ways never thought possible. The effects stem from the individuals childhood parents, teachers, and coaches are at fault, the children were praised and given trophies when they excelled and even when they failed, in an attempt to prevent damaging their self-esteem. Because of this most of the Trophy Generation who are about to enter the workplace feel a sense of entitlement never before seen. The Wall Street Journal quoted Natalie Griffith, manager of human-resource programs at Eaton Corp "Their attitude is always 'What are you going to give me,' "It's not necessarily arrogance; it's simply their mindset." The Trophy Generation expects a large of amount attention from employers on how their doing, also they want everything to be spelled out clearly and have a highly structured work environment. They want the best benefits and flexible work hours for family and personal time, high salaries, and quick promotions and if their demands aren’t met they move on to another company. The only problem with this situation is that they are for the most part unwilling to make trade-offs. Our society needs to stop promoting the everybody wins attitude, if it continues what will happen when the baby-boomer generation retires and we are left with jobs that the Trophy Generation doesn’t feel is worthy of their talent or skills. There needs to be separation in the workplace to create a stronger economy and society not everyone can be a CEO of a company.
Another area of the United States that is beginning to feel the effects of the Trophy Generation is the educational system. An example of this is the “no child left behind act”. Schools curriculum has been changed so that the standardized test that students must take is the material that is taught in an effort to increase test scores, but the deeper understanding and concepts of the material is lost. Also in an effort to bring everyone to the same level state minimums are required, which in some cases leads to the canceling of programs that don’t help achieve those goals such as ones that gifted, talented, and high-performing students are in. Some schools are more attentive to the needs of the students who don’t care about school and don’t put in the effort than the gifted students who are the future of this country. Furthermore some students feel entitled to an A regardless of the amount of work they put into it. Back in high school I can remember multiple occasions when a student was dissatisfied with the grade that they had received usually because it was a failing grade and they didn’t understand why. They would argue with the teacher saying that the teacher didn’t inform them that they were not doing well in the class, or that the teacher wouldn’t help them, even though in both cases the students never took the initiative in the situation. This is mostly a result of the fact that their parents guided them through every situation so they feel that that’s how it will be for the rest of their life someone will be there to hold their hand. The results of this are extremely evident when test scores from U.S. students are compared to that of world. “The scores from the 2006 PISA test showed that U.S. 15-year-olds trailed their peers from many industrialized countries. The average science score of U.S. students lagged behind those in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world's richest countries. The U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.” There needs to be a crackdown on the educational system more emphasis needs to be placed on the gifted programs, teachers need to stop compromising with students about the grades they have received.
Individuals born since 1980 have been raised with the ideals that there is no such thing as losing and that the world will be handed to them regardless of the amount of work they put into it. Granted the Trophy Generation seems to be more driven than previous generations, and has set lofty goals for themselves. It’s the way they handle failure that is a problem, they don’t believe they are ever wrong. American Idol is a leading example of this, countless numbers of horrible singers audition every year regardless of how bad they are. They believe in themselves so much that they are blind to the truth, that they have no skill in singing and when the judges tell them that they didn’t perform well, they take it as a personal attack instead of constructive criticism and it’s that everyone wins attitude that is to blame. In addition look at the number of ridiculous lawsuits filed everyday by people whose feelings were hurt. Dr. Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at the University of San Diego, “concluded that Trophy Generations are narcissistic: focused only on themselves and incapable of acknowledging or appreciating others' points of view or circumstances. Twenge's conclusions are based on her analysis of the data from a standardized narcissistic personality inventory. Analyzing data from published reports, Twenge concluded that the average college student is 30 percent more narcissistic in 2006 than was the average student in 1982 (Business Week).” This could become an even more serious if the trend of doting parents and coaches rewarding mediocrity continues. Schools curriculum needs to be overhauled as well, to keep up with the rest of the world, and teachers need to become stricter and create a more independent classroom environment. The U.S. needs to end the “everybody wins society”, we created a narcissistic group of individuals who feel entitled to everything there is, have no sense of what failure is, and who are falling behind the rest of the world in education. Unless something is done about this the U.S. economy could continue this downward spiral, because the Trophy Generation won’t be able to live up to the work ethic and effectiveness of previous generations.
Aaron Gingerich
In society today children are raised in an “everybody wins” culture, in an attempt to avoid the emotional pain of failure for those who aren’t as gifted as their peers. The educational system is suffering from this coddling of children, students expect A’s instead of earning them. Also since those children were never exposed to failure and criticism society has become hyper sensitive to everything that isn’t politically correct. The entitlement they feel is apparent in the number of ridiculous lawsuits that are filed everyday because their feelings were hurt. The United States is producing a “Trophy Generation”: Overconfident under achievers who will not measure up to the work ethic of past generations as well as breeding a society full of mediocrity with a false sense of entitlement and something needs to be done about this.
The United States has been producing the Trophy Generation for the past twenty years and the way children were coddled and raised in the “everybody wins” atmosphere is about to affect the work place in ways never thought possible. The effects stem from the individuals childhood parents, teachers, and coaches are at fault, the children were praised and given trophies when they excelled and even when they failed, in an attempt to prevent damaging their self-esteem. Because of this most of the Trophy Generation who are about to enter the workplace feel a sense of entitlement never before seen. The Wall Street Journal quoted Natalie Griffith, manager of human-resource programs at Eaton Corp "Their attitude is always 'What are you going to give me,' "It's not necessarily arrogance; it's simply their mindset." The Trophy Generation expects a large of amount attention from employers on how their doing, also they want everything to be spelled out clearly and have a highly structured work environment. They want the best benefits and flexible work hours for family and personal time, high salaries, and quick promotions and if their demands aren’t met they move on to another company. The only problem with this situation is that they are for the most part unwilling to make trade-offs. Our society needs to stop promoting the everybody wins attitude, if it continues what will happen when the baby-boomer generation retires and we are left with jobs that the Trophy Generation doesn’t feel is worthy of their talent or skills. There needs to be separation in the workplace to create a stronger economy and society not everyone can be a CEO of a company.
Another area of the United States that is beginning to feel the effects of the Trophy Generation is the educational system. An example of this is the “no child left behind act”. Schools curriculum has been changed so that the standardized test that students must take is the material that is taught in an effort to increase test scores, but the deeper understanding and concepts of the material is lost. Also in an effort to bring everyone to the same level state minimums are required, which in some cases leads to the canceling of programs that don’t help achieve those goals such as ones that gifted, talented, and high-performing students are in. Some schools are more attentive to the needs of the students who don’t care about school and don’t put in the effort than the gifted students who are the future of this country. Furthermore some students feel entitled to an A regardless of the amount of work they put into it. Back in high school I can remember multiple occasions when a student was dissatisfied with the grade that they had received usually because it was a failing grade and they didn’t understand why. They would argue with the teacher saying that the teacher didn’t inform them that they were not doing well in the class, or that the teacher wouldn’t help them, even though in both cases the students never took the initiative in the situation. This is mostly a result of the fact that their parents guided them through every situation so they feel that that’s how it will be for the rest of their life someone will be there to hold their hand. The results of this are extremely evident when test scores from U.S. students are compared to that of world. “The scores from the 2006 PISA test showed that U.S. 15-year-olds trailed their peers from many industrialized countries. The average science score of U.S. students lagged behind those in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world's richest countries. The U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.” There needs to be a crackdown on the educational system more emphasis needs to be placed on the gifted programs, teachers need to stop compromising with students about the grades they have received.
Individuals born since 1980 have been raised with the ideals that there is no such thing as losing and that the world will be handed to them regardless of the amount of work they put into it. Granted the Trophy Generation seems to be more driven than previous generations, and has set lofty goals for themselves. It’s the way they handle failure that is a problem, they don’t believe they are ever wrong. American Idol is a leading example of this, countless numbers of horrible singers audition every year regardless of how bad they are. They believe in themselves so much that they are blind to the truth, that they have no skill in singing and when the judges tell them that they didn’t perform well, they take it as a personal attack instead of constructive criticism and it’s that everyone wins attitude that is to blame. In addition look at the number of ridiculous lawsuits filed everyday by people whose feelings were hurt. Dr. Jean Twenge, professor of psychology at the University of San Diego, “concluded that Trophy Generations are narcissistic: focused only on themselves and incapable of acknowledging or appreciating others' points of view or circumstances. Twenge's conclusions are based on her analysis of the data from a standardized narcissistic personality inventory. Analyzing data from published reports, Twenge concluded that the average college student is 30 percent more narcissistic in 2006 than was the average student in 1982 (Business Week).” This could become an even more serious if the trend of doting parents and coaches rewarding mediocrity continues. Schools curriculum needs to be overhauled as well, to keep up with the rest of the world, and teachers need to become stricter and create a more independent classroom environment. The U.S. needs to end the “everybody wins society”, we created a narcissistic group of individuals who feel entitled to everything there is, have no sense of what failure is, and who are falling behind the rest of the world in education. Unless something is done about this the U.S. economy could continue this downward spiral, because the Trophy Generation won’t be able to live up to the work ethic and effectiveness of previous generations.
Aaron Gingerich
lower the legal drinking age
Sinclair Dotson
English 100
Dr. Molly McCaffrey
2 November 2009
[Lower the Legal Drinking Age]
As it stands, the legal drinking age in the U.S. is twenty-one; however, we all know that underage drinking is a relatively common occurrence. The country’s written laws may say one thing, but teens and young adults are definitely writing their own rules. The drinking age is getting younger and younger; nowadays kids are drinking as young as in middle school are sneaking visits to there parent’s liquor cabinets. Kids in high school and college are pushing the physical limits of alcohol intake like never before. This is dangerous behavior that is going to happen regardless, but what’s more frightening? These situations happening or these situations happening and when drinking related emergencies arise these teens and young adults being less inclined to call for help. Underage adults are less likely to call for help because of fear or retribution. The U.S. government should lower the drinking age, because it will benefit everyone in many different ways.
You and a group of friends go to a party, and you are all under the legal drinking age. You’ve been drinking and one of your friends, also drinking, turns pale and begins to vomit. You think this is common for someone who is drunk, and help her to the bathroom. Her breathing then becomes irregular and she is unresponsive. You are afraid she may have alcohol poisoning, but what can you do? You and your friend are both underage and have been drinking, do you call 9-1-1 for help? You will have to tell them that you were drinking. You decide to keep yourself and your friend out of trouble by not involving the police; she should be fine if you give her some water and bread. Your friend finally passes out, but never wakes up. Emergencies like this happen, and when underage young adults have been drinking they are less likely to reach out for help for fear of getting into trouble. If the drinking age was lowered young adults would be less hesitant to call for help when alcohol related emergencies arise.
Drinking is often thought of as a “forbidden fruit”, therefore underage drinking may seem like the “cool” thing to do for young adults, and since it is forbidden it is out of control. If the legal drinking age was lowered young adults would be expected to drink more responsibly. Barrett Seaman, the author of “Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You”, says “If you lower that drinking age— make drinking no longer a forbidden fruit but rather something that young adults do with older adults who have learned how to handle alcohol responsibly— then you reduce those behaviors than increase them…”(Johnson). If the legal drinking age is lowered young adults are less likely to binge drink and more likely to drink less and responsibly. Rarely in countries where the legal drinking age is lower will you see belligerent drunk young adults in public settings. If one is allowed to do something and isn’t conditioned to think it’s something you shouldn’t do, one is less likely to feel the urge to attempt it.
The law recognizes a person of eighteen years to be a legal adult. An eighteen year old adult can buy tobacco legally, he or she can legally attain an unrestricted driver’s license, and he or she can be charged as an adult in a court of law. If eighteen years of age constitutes a legal adult, then why can a legal adult not be allowed to buy alcohol? This is a very simple and logical reason that the legal drinking age should be lowered. There is no reason why a legal adult should be restricted from purchasing and drinking alcohol is they are considered an adult in the eyes of the government.
Lowering the drinking age should not only be done for logical reasons, but it will also benefit us by decreasing the fatalities due to alcohol related emergencies not being responded to, as well as educating young adults on how to drink responsibly. The United States government should follow other countries in lowering the legal drinking age.
i had a question about my works cited. my quote was from a person that was being interviewed by a reporter who reported the story online. do i cite the person who said it or the article from msnbc.com or do i cite both and how would i cite both?
English 100
Dr. Molly McCaffrey
2 November 2009
[Lower the Legal Drinking Age]
As it stands, the legal drinking age in the U.S. is twenty-one; however, we all know that underage drinking is a relatively common occurrence. The country’s written laws may say one thing, but teens and young adults are definitely writing their own rules. The drinking age is getting younger and younger; nowadays kids are drinking as young as in middle school are sneaking visits to there parent’s liquor cabinets. Kids in high school and college are pushing the physical limits of alcohol intake like never before. This is dangerous behavior that is going to happen regardless, but what’s more frightening? These situations happening or these situations happening and when drinking related emergencies arise these teens and young adults being less inclined to call for help. Underage adults are less likely to call for help because of fear or retribution. The U.S. government should lower the drinking age, because it will benefit everyone in many different ways.
You and a group of friends go to a party, and you are all under the legal drinking age. You’ve been drinking and one of your friends, also drinking, turns pale and begins to vomit. You think this is common for someone who is drunk, and help her to the bathroom. Her breathing then becomes irregular and she is unresponsive. You are afraid she may have alcohol poisoning, but what can you do? You and your friend are both underage and have been drinking, do you call 9-1-1 for help? You will have to tell them that you were drinking. You decide to keep yourself and your friend out of trouble by not involving the police; she should be fine if you give her some water and bread. Your friend finally passes out, but never wakes up. Emergencies like this happen, and when underage young adults have been drinking they are less likely to reach out for help for fear of getting into trouble. If the drinking age was lowered young adults would be less hesitant to call for help when alcohol related emergencies arise.
Drinking is often thought of as a “forbidden fruit”, therefore underage drinking may seem like the “cool” thing to do for young adults, and since it is forbidden it is out of control. If the legal drinking age was lowered young adults would be expected to drink more responsibly. Barrett Seaman, the author of “Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You”, says “If you lower that drinking age— make drinking no longer a forbidden fruit but rather something that young adults do with older adults who have learned how to handle alcohol responsibly— then you reduce those behaviors than increase them…”(Johnson). If the legal drinking age is lowered young adults are less likely to binge drink and more likely to drink less and responsibly. Rarely in countries where the legal drinking age is lower will you see belligerent drunk young adults in public settings. If one is allowed to do something and isn’t conditioned to think it’s something you shouldn’t do, one is less likely to feel the urge to attempt it.
The law recognizes a person of eighteen years to be a legal adult. An eighteen year old adult can buy tobacco legally, he or she can legally attain an unrestricted driver’s license, and he or she can be charged as an adult in a court of law. If eighteen years of age constitutes a legal adult, then why can a legal adult not be allowed to buy alcohol? This is a very simple and logical reason that the legal drinking age should be lowered. There is no reason why a legal adult should be restricted from purchasing and drinking alcohol is they are considered an adult in the eyes of the government.
Lowering the drinking age should not only be done for logical reasons, but it will also benefit us by decreasing the fatalities due to alcohol related emergencies not being responded to, as well as educating young adults on how to drink responsibly. The United States government should follow other countries in lowering the legal drinking age.
i had a question about my works cited. my quote was from a person that was being interviewed by a reporter who reported the story online. do i cite the person who said it or the article from msnbc.com or do i cite both and how would i cite both?
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Country Without A Language
Although the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States
speak english as a native language, it is not the official language of our country. Nothing is, actually. Technically, there is no official language of the United States. 82% of the population of the U.S. think that english should be officially chosen as the language of the United States and so do I (Mount). English should be the official language of the United States.
When this country was established, the ground work of laws and basic rights were written. They are known as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The language these documents are written in is english. The large majority of Americans spoke it back then, and the large majority of Americans speak it now. In 1780, John Adams proposed that english should be the official language of the United States and since then, it has been proposed many times by congress (Mount). It is a fact and is widely known that the United States has been an english speaking nation since it was created and that its constitution and foundational documents are in english.
This country is spending billions of dollars to compensate for non-english speaking Americans. Bilingual education alone costs billions of tax payer’s dollars each year. This country has spent over $100 million dollars in studying bilingual education and has found that teaching english, which is also burning a hole in this country’s pocket, to ESL (english as a second language) kids isn’t as effective as english immersion programs (Mujica). Last year, Los Angeles spent $3.3 million to print election ballots in seven languages and hire miltilingual poll workers for the primary election (Mujica). It is also estimated that Los Angeles spends $106,000 a day on full-time court interpreters (Mujica). San Francisco spends in upwards of $350,000 per each languages that documents must be translated into under its bilingual government ordinance (Mujica). The health care industry is also experiencing problems with bilingualism. Why the U.S. Needs an Official Language, an article written by Mauro Mujica in 2003, tells a story of a “22-year-old immigrant who won a $71 million settlement because a group of paramedics and doctors misdiagnosed a blood clot in his brain. The man's relatives used the Spanish word “intoxicado” to describe his ailment. They meant he was nauseated, but the translator interpreted the word to mean intoxicated. If this country had an official language of english, and these immigrants had the responsibility of learning it while they are living in this country, millions of dollars of settlement money could have been saved and this man could have been properly diagnosed.”
Not making english the official language of the United States is putting an encumbrance on the millions of people who were born in America and also into an english speaking family. If it were mandatory for all immigrants to learn english upon entering the country, the rise of non-english speaking Americans would start to diminish and the english language would continue to reign supreme. I am not taking a stance against immigration in any way, I am, however, saying that it is up to the immigrants entering this country to learn english and put a stop to the burden that they are putting on us by not being able to communicate properly with them.
Some people may say that by establishing an official language, we are taking away the rights of the people that live here. They say America is a country of diversity and making everyone conform to english will take that diversity away, the same attribute that makes this country so great.
Although America is a country of diversity, no one will loose their rights by making this decision. By choosing english as the official language, America will unify towards something and it will make the well being of all Americans better if everyone in this country could communicate with eachother.
In conclusion, the United States should change it’s legislature so that it has an official language of English. Making english the official language of the country will heighten the quality of all American lives.
By: Kyle Knight
speak english as a native language, it is not the official language of our country. Nothing is, actually. Technically, there is no official language of the United States. 82% of the population of the U.S. think that english should be officially chosen as the language of the United States and so do I (Mount). English should be the official language of the United States.
When this country was established, the ground work of laws and basic rights were written. They are known as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The language these documents are written in is english. The large majority of Americans spoke it back then, and the large majority of Americans speak it now. In 1780, John Adams proposed that english should be the official language of the United States and since then, it has been proposed many times by congress (Mount). It is a fact and is widely known that the United States has been an english speaking nation since it was created and that its constitution and foundational documents are in english.
This country is spending billions of dollars to compensate for non-english speaking Americans. Bilingual education alone costs billions of tax payer’s dollars each year. This country has spent over $100 million dollars in studying bilingual education and has found that teaching english, which is also burning a hole in this country’s pocket, to ESL (english as a second language) kids isn’t as effective as english immersion programs (Mujica). Last year, Los Angeles spent $3.3 million to print election ballots in seven languages and hire miltilingual poll workers for the primary election (Mujica). It is also estimated that Los Angeles spends $106,000 a day on full-time court interpreters (Mujica). San Francisco spends in upwards of $350,000 per each languages that documents must be translated into under its bilingual government ordinance (Mujica). The health care industry is also experiencing problems with bilingualism. Why the U.S. Needs an Official Language, an article written by Mauro Mujica in 2003, tells a story of a “22-year-old immigrant who won a $71 million settlement because a group of paramedics and doctors misdiagnosed a blood clot in his brain. The man's relatives used the Spanish word “intoxicado” to describe his ailment. They meant he was nauseated, but the translator interpreted the word to mean intoxicated. If this country had an official language of english, and these immigrants had the responsibility of learning it while they are living in this country, millions of dollars of settlement money could have been saved and this man could have been properly diagnosed.”
Not making english the official language of the United States is putting an encumbrance on the millions of people who were born in America and also into an english speaking family. If it were mandatory for all immigrants to learn english upon entering the country, the rise of non-english speaking Americans would start to diminish and the english language would continue to reign supreme. I am not taking a stance against immigration in any way, I am, however, saying that it is up to the immigrants entering this country to learn english and put a stop to the burden that they are putting on us by not being able to communicate properly with them.
Some people may say that by establishing an official language, we are taking away the rights of the people that live here. They say America is a country of diversity and making everyone conform to english will take that diversity away, the same attribute that makes this country so great.
Although America is a country of diversity, no one will loose their rights by making this decision. By choosing english as the official language, America will unify towards something and it will make the well being of all Americans better if everyone in this country could communicate with eachother.
In conclusion, the United States should change it’s legislature so that it has an official language of English. Making english the official language of the country will heighten the quality of all American lives.
By: Kyle Knight
Unions: A Prehistoric Invention
My mother works at a company that considers 35 hours a week full-time. She receives well above minimum wage and consistently receives overtime and holiday bonuses. She has stock options, a 401(k), and health insurance. What she doesn’t have, though, is a labor union representing her. My mother works at Target. She has all of the things that unions fight hard to get for their members, yet a union has never set foot in her store. This makes me question why unions are still around. They are an old invention and their effectiveness today is questionable. They were once an asset to workers, but because many of the problems they were created for are now almost non-existent, labor unions are highly outdated and unnecessary, creating more problems than they do solutions.
Unions help members who are unjustly fired get their jobs back and aid their them when they are having trouble at work. These benefits seem simple, but unions can twist them and cause employers trouble that they doesn’t deserve. Kenny Rogers, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, assaulted two cameramen in June of 2005 while with the Texas Rangers. He was suspended for 20 games and fined $50,000. However, according to a Wall Street Journal article on the incident, due to the baseball players union’s “chronic obstreperousness... Rogers will be paid 100% of his salary during his hiatus” (Moores D8). The punishment was also “...being contested by the union” (Moores D8). It is not only sports players that receive this treatment. According to a Wall Street Journal article, Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs, during an education conference, said “...union work rules prevent principals from firing the bad teachers and rewarding the good ones” (“Non-Union Jobs” A10). He also said that “‘this unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy’” (“Non-Union Jobs” A10). That may be so, but it is not nearly as crazy as this story my mother told me: a woman who worked with my mother at Target also had a job at Kroger, a grocery store. She had a history of alcohol abuse and one day stole alcohol from Kroger and drank it while on the clock. She was promptly dismissed. However, Kroger is a union company and the union demanded that the employee not only be re-hired but that Kroger pay for her rehabilitation. This practice is ludicrous. While it appears to help a union’s members, it is really hurting them, along with the employer. Rogers did not deserve to be paid his salary after assaulting those two men and it sets a terrible precedent for other misbehaving athletes. Teachers shouldn’t be kept on a school’s payroll if they are underperforming and teachers who do their jobs proficiently should be paid more than their ineffectual counterparts. Employees who drink on the job are a danger to themselves, their co-workers, and customers and shouldn’t have their rehab paid by their employer.
Unions claim to represent their members and lobby lawmakers to get bills passed that will aid them. This is true, I won’t deny it, but unions rarely put their members’ agendas before their own. In a Wall Street Journal written by John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, a renowned polling firm, he stated “...I asked voters whether the AFL-CIO spoke for them when they went to the polls. The answers produced a real surprise: Among unionized likely voters, just 27% said the AFL-CIO spoke for them all or most of the time” (A10). That was in 2005. Four years later, unions continue to push legislation that most members do not support. Take the Employee Free Choice Act as an example. According to a Commentary article from October 2009, “the bill’s chief provisions authorize union formation in a workplace by ‘card check’- a euphemism for replacing a secret-ballot election on the potential unionization of a workplace with a system by which unions could secure exclusive bargaining rights through authorization cards...” (Rubin). This is harmful to workers attempting to form a union, because the vote are no longer anonymous. However, “...organized labor has deemed the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act its ‘number one legislative priority’ and has undertaken a vigorous national ad campaign on its behalf” (Rubin). This blatant practice of putting the organization’s agenda over its members’ needs is a terrible policy. Unions are not lobbies. They employ lobbyists, but they should be lobbying lawmakers based on the opinions of their members, not the suits in the corporate office.
Suits in the corporate office are better than the shady characters that have had connections to unions throughout history though. According to a Congressional Quarterly report on the history and future of unions “according to federal authorities, union and mob bosses often team up to demand kickbacks from union members in return for prime job assignments. Crime families also have been known to demand money from contractors in exchange for ‘labor peace.’ And contractors on union projects sometimes must pay salaries for ‘ghost’ employees- crime family members who either don’t show up or show up but do not work” (Prah). These practices have occurred since the 1950’s and continue today. According to the same report “by 2004, the Labor Department’s inspector general had 359 pending labor racketeering investigations, of which more than a third involved organized crime” (Prah). Mob ties aren’t the only corrupting factors. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from October 2009 reports that “the president of a national labor union was arrested... for allegedly taking $20,000 in bribes from a St. Louis lawyer, the U.S. attorney’s office said” (Patrick). This widespread criminal activity within unions sullies their supposedly good intentions and brings their legitimacy into question.
When unions were first formed, working conditions in many industrial workplaces were terrible. Pay was minimal and workloads were nigh impossible to complete. Unions came into workplaces and brought many reforms. They presented the problems in front of Congress, which passed legislation improving workers’ conditions and pay. I do not deny that unions have done a lot for workers. However, because Congress has passed several laws over the years protecting workers and insuring certain benefits, unions are unneeded. They do more bad than they do good. And union membership is steadily declining, with “...less than 8% of private sector workers unionized” (Zogby A10).
According to Zogby, “...39% of workers believe that while unions once were necessary, their time has passed...” (A10). My mother is one of these people. She may work at Target but she is able to get union benefits without the union headaches. With a misuse of policies, a practice of pushing their agendas over their members’, and a history of corruption, unions are unnecessary and outdated, creating problems when they should be creating solutions.
By Noah Frederick
Unions help members who are unjustly fired get their jobs back and aid their them when they are having trouble at work. These benefits seem simple, but unions can twist them and cause employers trouble that they doesn’t deserve. Kenny Rogers, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, assaulted two cameramen in June of 2005 while with the Texas Rangers. He was suspended for 20 games and fined $50,000. However, according to a Wall Street Journal article on the incident, due to the baseball players union’s “chronic obstreperousness... Rogers will be paid 100% of his salary during his hiatus” (Moores D8). The punishment was also “...being contested by the union” (Moores D8). It is not only sports players that receive this treatment. According to a Wall Street Journal article, Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs, during an education conference, said “...union work rules prevent principals from firing the bad teachers and rewarding the good ones” (“Non-Union Jobs” A10). He also said that “‘this unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy’” (“Non-Union Jobs” A10). That may be so, but it is not nearly as crazy as this story my mother told me: a woman who worked with my mother at Target also had a job at Kroger, a grocery store. She had a history of alcohol abuse and one day stole alcohol from Kroger and drank it while on the clock. She was promptly dismissed. However, Kroger is a union company and the union demanded that the employee not only be re-hired but that Kroger pay for her rehabilitation. This practice is ludicrous. While it appears to help a union’s members, it is really hurting them, along with the employer. Rogers did not deserve to be paid his salary after assaulting those two men and it sets a terrible precedent for other misbehaving athletes. Teachers shouldn’t be kept on a school’s payroll if they are underperforming and teachers who do their jobs proficiently should be paid more than their ineffectual counterparts. Employees who drink on the job are a danger to themselves, their co-workers, and customers and shouldn’t have their rehab paid by their employer.
Unions claim to represent their members and lobby lawmakers to get bills passed that will aid them. This is true, I won’t deny it, but unions rarely put their members’ agendas before their own. In a Wall Street Journal written by John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, a renowned polling firm, he stated “...I asked voters whether the AFL-CIO spoke for them when they went to the polls. The answers produced a real surprise: Among unionized likely voters, just 27% said the AFL-CIO spoke for them all or most of the time” (A10). That was in 2005. Four years later, unions continue to push legislation that most members do not support. Take the Employee Free Choice Act as an example. According to a Commentary article from October 2009, “the bill’s chief provisions authorize union formation in a workplace by ‘card check’- a euphemism for replacing a secret-ballot election on the potential unionization of a workplace with a system by which unions could secure exclusive bargaining rights through authorization cards...” (Rubin). This is harmful to workers attempting to form a union, because the vote are no longer anonymous. However, “...organized labor has deemed the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act its ‘number one legislative priority’ and has undertaken a vigorous national ad campaign on its behalf” (Rubin). This blatant practice of putting the organization’s agenda over its members’ needs is a terrible policy. Unions are not lobbies. They employ lobbyists, but they should be lobbying lawmakers based on the opinions of their members, not the suits in the corporate office.
Suits in the corporate office are better than the shady characters that have had connections to unions throughout history though. According to a Congressional Quarterly report on the history and future of unions “according to federal authorities, union and mob bosses often team up to demand kickbacks from union members in return for prime job assignments. Crime families also have been known to demand money from contractors in exchange for ‘labor peace.’ And contractors on union projects sometimes must pay salaries for ‘ghost’ employees- crime family members who either don’t show up or show up but do not work” (Prah). These practices have occurred since the 1950’s and continue today. According to the same report “by 2004, the Labor Department’s inspector general had 359 pending labor racketeering investigations, of which more than a third involved organized crime” (Prah). Mob ties aren’t the only corrupting factors. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from October 2009 reports that “the president of a national labor union was arrested... for allegedly taking $20,000 in bribes from a St. Louis lawyer, the U.S. attorney’s office said” (Patrick). This widespread criminal activity within unions sullies their supposedly good intentions and brings their legitimacy into question.
When unions were first formed, working conditions in many industrial workplaces were terrible. Pay was minimal and workloads were nigh impossible to complete. Unions came into workplaces and brought many reforms. They presented the problems in front of Congress, which passed legislation improving workers’ conditions and pay. I do not deny that unions have done a lot for workers. However, because Congress has passed several laws over the years protecting workers and insuring certain benefits, unions are unneeded. They do more bad than they do good. And union membership is steadily declining, with “...less than 8% of private sector workers unionized” (Zogby A10).
According to Zogby, “...39% of workers believe that while unions once were necessary, their time has passed...” (A10). My mother is one of these people. She may work at Target but she is able to get union benefits without the union headaches. With a misuse of policies, a practice of pushing their agendas over their members’, and a history of corruption, unions are unnecessary and outdated, creating problems when they should be creating solutions.
By Noah Frederick
The Cost Of College
In today’s civilization, it is becoming more and more strenuous to attain a job without a distinguished level of education outside of high school. Currently many High School students today have hope in furthering their education at a well acclaimed University but for many the price of attending college is beyond what many can afford.
According to CNN.com, statistics show that college education rose 82 percent over the past decade which exceeds three times the rate of living. It also outpaced the basic necessities many families need such as medical care and food which isn’t a good look at all.
This is something discussed between many and a lot feel that the overwhelming cost of college makes the decision of attending it somewhat of a debacle. Scholarships and financial aid remain an option to those whom certify and/or apply, but imagine being raised by a single mother like my very own whom at times put her needs aside in order to make sure the needs of her children were met regardless the situation. Financial assistance isn’t a choice for all. Struggle is something we all endure but others experience it to a further extent.
LoveToKnow.com states that 34.6 percent of students raised in low income housing obtain greater chances of either dropping out of high school before graduating, or get characterized for not furthering their education to a higher level such as attending college. Raised under the influence of a single parent’s knowledge, such as myself, my mother did not obtain aspirations for the college life. Stats say this result in their children (me) not going as well; because that’s the only individual they have to look up to.
Yet independent and strong willed, she continuously stressed the fact that college was the only way out of a life of grief and hopelessness. I believe if college cost declined, adolescents of my age would look at universities with endless high hopes and gain the feeling that it may be a once in a lifetime experience.
Contrary to marital status, students also turn to the streets as a form of “education.” Presuming street knowledge outweighs anything taught in a classroom, gangs and violence, drugs and/or alcohol become their elucidation. To the understanding of African Americans, blacks are more likely to seize failure affecting not only themselves, but the people and the society it surrounds. African Americans constantly get looked down upon and convey the stereotypical burden of unimportance on their shoulders. Also, pregnancy and marriage occur at younger ages and the ability to find a commendable paying job becomes hard due to under qualification. This occurrence traces back to the fact that if college cost decreased, more and more people could progress worry free. For those of reassurance, sparse opportunities arise to whosoever explicit themselves.
Conversely, college grants equip those whom permit. Only problem, a Merit-Based grant essentially looks upon the grades of such student and their overall GPA. There’s also Financial aid, a positive given which basically estimates you ability of receiving help towards college expenses in the form of money.
Lastly, athletic scholarships are offered to those whom show an advanced skill in the sport of his or her choice. Sportsmanship and ability vastly get looked upon as well as academics. This determines the fate of benefiting money in the form of a full ride scholarship.
To try and solve this situation, I believe the income individuals bring home annually should be looked at. For instance, my mother’s situation exhibits the ideal example. She accumulates a gross of around $18,500.00 a year. This may seem like a dissent amount but from time to time it feels as if we live from check to check. I undertook the opportunity of FASFA, and in the end I was still short and left with debt to pay.
Lastly, looking at minorities could exclude a portion of the problem. Seeking diverse races, ethic beliefs, and unique talents could increase this happening. The creation of more essays could also put a cease to those who may feel left out and bring minorities and the majorities together.
I believe the price of attending college is holding many back from their future dreams. Its something that should be really considered and will help make difference towards the well-being of future youth.
According to CNN.com, statistics show that college education rose 82 percent over the past decade which exceeds three times the rate of living. It also outpaced the basic necessities many families need such as medical care and food which isn’t a good look at all.
This is something discussed between many and a lot feel that the overwhelming cost of college makes the decision of attending it somewhat of a debacle. Scholarships and financial aid remain an option to those whom certify and/or apply, but imagine being raised by a single mother like my very own whom at times put her needs aside in order to make sure the needs of her children were met regardless the situation. Financial assistance isn’t a choice for all. Struggle is something we all endure but others experience it to a further extent.
LoveToKnow.com states that 34.6 percent of students raised in low income housing obtain greater chances of either dropping out of high school before graduating, or get characterized for not furthering their education to a higher level such as attending college. Raised under the influence of a single parent’s knowledge, such as myself, my mother did not obtain aspirations for the college life. Stats say this result in their children (me) not going as well; because that’s the only individual they have to look up to.
Yet independent and strong willed, she continuously stressed the fact that college was the only way out of a life of grief and hopelessness. I believe if college cost declined, adolescents of my age would look at universities with endless high hopes and gain the feeling that it may be a once in a lifetime experience.
Contrary to marital status, students also turn to the streets as a form of “education.” Presuming street knowledge outweighs anything taught in a classroom, gangs and violence, drugs and/or alcohol become their elucidation. To the understanding of African Americans, blacks are more likely to seize failure affecting not only themselves, but the people and the society it surrounds. African Americans constantly get looked down upon and convey the stereotypical burden of unimportance on their shoulders. Also, pregnancy and marriage occur at younger ages and the ability to find a commendable paying job becomes hard due to under qualification. This occurrence traces back to the fact that if college cost decreased, more and more people could progress worry free. For those of reassurance, sparse opportunities arise to whosoever explicit themselves.
Conversely, college grants equip those whom permit. Only problem, a Merit-Based grant essentially looks upon the grades of such student and their overall GPA. There’s also Financial aid, a positive given which basically estimates you ability of receiving help towards college expenses in the form of money.
Lastly, athletic scholarships are offered to those whom show an advanced skill in the sport of his or her choice. Sportsmanship and ability vastly get looked upon as well as academics. This determines the fate of benefiting money in the form of a full ride scholarship.
To try and solve this situation, I believe the income individuals bring home annually should be looked at. For instance, my mother’s situation exhibits the ideal example. She accumulates a gross of around $18,500.00 a year. This may seem like a dissent amount but from time to time it feels as if we live from check to check. I undertook the opportunity of FASFA, and in the end I was still short and left with debt to pay.
Lastly, looking at minorities could exclude a portion of the problem. Seeking diverse races, ethic beliefs, and unique talents could increase this happening. The creation of more essays could also put a cease to those who may feel left out and bring minorities and the majorities together.
I believe the price of attending college is holding many back from their future dreams. Its something that should be really considered and will help make difference towards the well-being of future youth.
Does Tanning Equal Death?
A person’s chances of contracting skin cancer increase by seventy-five percent if they use a tanning bed before the age of thirty. However, America is seemingly ignoring these facts. People around the country go to tanning beds year round to get a beautiful summer glow. Unfortunately by doing this they are destroying their skin. According to many researchers, those who use tanning beds can and will greatly damage their skin The use of tanning beds can become a very serious addiction for some people and should thus be eliminated by the government. In my personal opinion the use of tanning beds should be stopped or limited so people do not over use them. I believe this for two major reasons. First, tanning beds cause skin cancer. Second, Ultra-Violet light causes severe eye damage. These are the reasons I believe the use of tanning beds should be limited to the public.
The first reason I believe tanning beds should be regulated is because they can cause skin cancer. Most tanning beds use ultraviolet bulbs. These bulbs give off mostly UV-A rays. UV-A rays go deep into a person’s skin and can disrupt cells involved with the body’s immune response, which can increase the chance of developing melanoma and other skin cancers. Regular exposure to the sun and tanning beds can lead to the risk of three types of skin cancer. Basal cell, Squamous cell and Melanoma. Basal cell is a benign type of skin cancer, which causes scarring. Squamous cell is generally benign but can spread through the body if it is not taken care of. Melanoma is the most deadly types of skin cancer.
My great grandmother and grandfather lived on a farm and they spent a lot of time in the sun. There was also a lake near by and they loved to sun bathe there. My great grandmother had a mole on her back from the time she was a little girl, but as she got older her mole became darker and misshaped. When a doctor finally noticed the mole, he told her to stay out of the sun as much as she could. He then removed the mole and discovered she had Melanoma. The doctor was too late; the mole grew back and the Melanoma had spread further through her body. My great grandmother became very sick and ended up dying from the Melanoma. She passed away in her late forties, which is very young. Her death was extremely hard for my grandmother and her siblings.
Tanning beds produce the same UV-A rays as the sun. In some cases tanning beds can be more dangerous than the sun because there is a more concentrated distribution of UV-A rays to the skin. In her online article Tanning Beds- More Dangerous than Sunlight? Dr. Melissa Stoppler writes about how many people feel having a tan is an attractive thing, but in reality a tan is a sign of skin damage.
The second reason I believe the use of tanning beds should be limited is because ultra-violet light can cause serious and permanent eye damage. There are three major eye problems ultra-violet light causes. First and foremost, ultra-violet light is a direct cause of cancer of the eye. Second, ultra violet light increases a person’s chances of having cataracts. Third, ultra-violet light causes retinal damage. As a result of these reasons, I have personally concluded tanning beds should be limited, in society.
While there are a great number of disadvantages when it comes to the use of tanning beds, there are also a few positives. One example of this is, ultra-violet light increases vitamin D in one’s body. Vitamin D thickens the bones. Which in turn makes for a healthier life style. However, while the increase of vitamin D is no doubt a good thing, it does not off set all of the bad effects caused by tanning beds. Tanning beds do more harm than good.
In the early years of our country it was attractive for a woman to have fair skin. This has since changed. “The lifetime risk of melanoma as we know it today is about 1 in 75 whereas 70 years ago, this number was 1 in 5,000 (*******).” This is a very drastic change. The biggest difference between fifty years ago and now, is the addition of tanning beds to society. While in some cases tanning beds can be good for a person, in most cases this is not true. The ultra-violet light used in tanning beds is deadly. There isn’t a simpler way of putting it. Ultra-violet light leads directly to skin cancer and can cause severe eye damage. People need to educate themselves when it comes to tanning beds. However, this isn’t a role people should have to worry about. The government needs to step in. If they don’t we could lose a vast amount of our generation. For these reasons, the use of tanning beds should be limited, and possibly banned. So, we might preserve our skin and our life spans.
-Kristi Genton
The first reason I believe tanning beds should be regulated is because they can cause skin cancer. Most tanning beds use ultraviolet bulbs. These bulbs give off mostly UV-A rays. UV-A rays go deep into a person’s skin and can disrupt cells involved with the body’s immune response, which can increase the chance of developing melanoma and other skin cancers. Regular exposure to the sun and tanning beds can lead to the risk of three types of skin cancer. Basal cell, Squamous cell and Melanoma. Basal cell is a benign type of skin cancer, which causes scarring. Squamous cell is generally benign but can spread through the body if it is not taken care of. Melanoma is the most deadly types of skin cancer.
My great grandmother and grandfather lived on a farm and they spent a lot of time in the sun. There was also a lake near by and they loved to sun bathe there. My great grandmother had a mole on her back from the time she was a little girl, but as she got older her mole became darker and misshaped. When a doctor finally noticed the mole, he told her to stay out of the sun as much as she could. He then removed the mole and discovered she had Melanoma. The doctor was too late; the mole grew back and the Melanoma had spread further through her body. My great grandmother became very sick and ended up dying from the Melanoma. She passed away in her late forties, which is very young. Her death was extremely hard for my grandmother and her siblings.
Tanning beds produce the same UV-A rays as the sun. In some cases tanning beds can be more dangerous than the sun because there is a more concentrated distribution of UV-A rays to the skin. In her online article Tanning Beds- More Dangerous than Sunlight? Dr. Melissa Stoppler writes about how many people feel having a tan is an attractive thing, but in reality a tan is a sign of skin damage.
The second reason I believe the use of tanning beds should be limited is because ultra-violet light can cause serious and permanent eye damage. There are three major eye problems ultra-violet light causes. First and foremost, ultra-violet light is a direct cause of cancer of the eye. Second, ultra violet light increases a person’s chances of having cataracts. Third, ultra-violet light causes retinal damage. As a result of these reasons, I have personally concluded tanning beds should be limited, in society.
While there are a great number of disadvantages when it comes to the use of tanning beds, there are also a few positives. One example of this is, ultra-violet light increases vitamin D in one’s body. Vitamin D thickens the bones. Which in turn makes for a healthier life style. However, while the increase of vitamin D is no doubt a good thing, it does not off set all of the bad effects caused by tanning beds. Tanning beds do more harm than good.
In the early years of our country it was attractive for a woman to have fair skin. This has since changed. “The lifetime risk of melanoma as we know it today is about 1 in 75 whereas 70 years ago, this number was 1 in 5,000 (*******).” This is a very drastic change. The biggest difference between fifty years ago and now, is the addition of tanning beds to society. While in some cases tanning beds can be good for a person, in most cases this is not true. The ultra-violet light used in tanning beds is deadly. There isn’t a simpler way of putting it. Ultra-violet light leads directly to skin cancer and can cause severe eye damage. People need to educate themselves when it comes to tanning beds. However, this isn’t a role people should have to worry about. The government needs to step in. If they don’t we could lose a vast amount of our generation. For these reasons, the use of tanning beds should be limited, and possibly banned. So, we might preserve our skin and our life spans.
-Kristi Genton
Vaccine Pressures
H1N1 (swine flu) has recently received much attention from the American public. It seemed like an unstoppable menace. At first, vaccines or drugs to combat the virus were nonexistent. Now government health officials claim that another outbreak of the swine flu is on its way. Unlike the first outbreak, a vaccine is available to help stop the virus from spreading, and been administered to public and health officials. Vaccination efforts are putting more pressure on doctors and nurses. Even with the threat of a second outbreak of the swine flu, people in power should not pressure doctors and nurses into taking the H1N1 vaccine.
Some officials, like Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, claim the pressure for doctors and nurses to become vaccinated does not exist. According to Sebelius, “There continues to be information circulating that somehow this vaccination campaign is mandatory. It is not. It is voluntary” (Stein). Although this statement may be true for some hospitals and states, it is certainly not true for others. New York requires all of its health care workers to receive the H1N1 vaccine (Stein). In addition, MedStar, a non-profit health-care system, is mandating that all of its 25,000 employees be vaccinated (Stein). The fact that MedStar and New York are forcing these workers to take the swine flu vaccine clearly shows the vaccination program is not voluntary. If these intuitions continue to force their doctors and nurses to become vaccinated while hiding behind the excuse of putting patient’s health first, then other states and medical establishments will be tempted to do the same.
It would seem that Medstar and New York’s mandatory programs would protect patient health. However, the first reason I believe that nurses and doctors should not have to be vaccinated is because the vaccine was manufactured too fast for a full understanding of the side effects. Many nurses feel that the vaccine has not met regular safety standards. Tara Accavallo, a registered nurse at Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, says, “This vaccine has not been clinically tested to the same degree as the regular flu vaccine”(“First they”). My aunt Dawn Howard, a nurse at Kensington Nursing and Rehab, says, “The vaccine has not been out that long and I do not know what the side effects are.” She is also concerned about the shot’s potential effect on her unborn child. Certain batches in production have been found to contain mercury (“First they”). This deadly toxin can cause serious nerve damage (“First they”). Moreover, the swine flu shots contain immune adjuvant, a chemical associated with disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus (Baylock). In addition, neurologists, in the UK, received letters from government officials warning that the swine flu vaccine, in some tests, caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a potentially lethal brain disorder (“First they”).
From these hazardous chemical ingredients and risk of brain disorders, it is easy to see why some doctors and nurses are uneasy about the vaccination. These health care providers are in a better position to understand the dangerous implications of these chemical additives than the people who force them to take the vaccine. I understand the vaccination is an attempt to put the patient’s health first, but I do not believe that the health of those who care for the public should be last.
Aside from the unpredictable side effects, the second reason I believe that doctors and nurses should not have mandatory vaccinations for the swine flu is that there are other methods of controlling the spread of the swine flu. Workers could wear medical safety masks when dealing with patients infected with H1N1 or working in an infected area (Stein). Safety masks decrease the chances of the virus entering the airways of the wearer. In addition, clean hygiene is an effective method of stopping infection. Washing one’s hands before and after dealing with sick patients particularly reduces the chance of spreading any disease. These practices, applied to the medical environment, would be enough to eliminate the need for doctors to be vaccinated. The high pressure placed on doctors due the swine flu vaccine is “really sucking the air out of the room to deal with infection control in a more comprehensive manner” (Stein). Instead of a potentially harmful vaccine, these less threatening methods should be the first line of defense for our doctors and nurses.
While the public has been warned of a second outbreak of swine flu, our doctors and nurses should not be forced to take the H1N1 vaccine. The vaccine contains dangerous chemicals linked to several depilating disorders. Other methods of preventing the spread of swine flu such as facemasks and good hygiene are preferable to the vaccine. Nurses and doctors should have control over whether they get the vaccine for the swine flu rather than be pressured by their employers or state governments.
By Jarad Williams
Works Cited
Baylock, Dr. Russell. “Vaccine more dangerous than H1N1 flu.” The Bovine. Wordpress.com, 29 October 2009. Web. 1 November 2009.
“First they came for doctors and nurses.” The Bovine. Wordpress.com, 25 September 2009. Web. 29 October 2009.
Stein, Rob. “Many Health-Care Workers Required to Get Vaccines.” Washingtionpost.com. Washington Post, 26 September 2009. Web. 29 October 2009.
Some officials, like Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, claim the pressure for doctors and nurses to become vaccinated does not exist. According to Sebelius, “There continues to be information circulating that somehow this vaccination campaign is mandatory. It is not. It is voluntary” (Stein). Although this statement may be true for some hospitals and states, it is certainly not true for others. New York requires all of its health care workers to receive the H1N1 vaccine (Stein). In addition, MedStar, a non-profit health-care system, is mandating that all of its 25,000 employees be vaccinated (Stein). The fact that MedStar and New York are forcing these workers to take the swine flu vaccine clearly shows the vaccination program is not voluntary. If these intuitions continue to force their doctors and nurses to become vaccinated while hiding behind the excuse of putting patient’s health first, then other states and medical establishments will be tempted to do the same.
It would seem that Medstar and New York’s mandatory programs would protect patient health. However, the first reason I believe that nurses and doctors should not have to be vaccinated is because the vaccine was manufactured too fast for a full understanding of the side effects. Many nurses feel that the vaccine has not met regular safety standards. Tara Accavallo, a registered nurse at Stony Brook’s neonatal intensive care unit, says, “This vaccine has not been clinically tested to the same degree as the regular flu vaccine”(“First they”). My aunt Dawn Howard, a nurse at Kensington Nursing and Rehab, says, “The vaccine has not been out that long and I do not know what the side effects are.” She is also concerned about the shot’s potential effect on her unborn child. Certain batches in production have been found to contain mercury (“First they”). This deadly toxin can cause serious nerve damage (“First they”). Moreover, the swine flu shots contain immune adjuvant, a chemical associated with disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus (Baylock). In addition, neurologists, in the UK, received letters from government officials warning that the swine flu vaccine, in some tests, caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a potentially lethal brain disorder (“First they”).
From these hazardous chemical ingredients and risk of brain disorders, it is easy to see why some doctors and nurses are uneasy about the vaccination. These health care providers are in a better position to understand the dangerous implications of these chemical additives than the people who force them to take the vaccine. I understand the vaccination is an attempt to put the patient’s health first, but I do not believe that the health of those who care for the public should be last.
Aside from the unpredictable side effects, the second reason I believe that doctors and nurses should not have mandatory vaccinations for the swine flu is that there are other methods of controlling the spread of the swine flu. Workers could wear medical safety masks when dealing with patients infected with H1N1 or working in an infected area (Stein). Safety masks decrease the chances of the virus entering the airways of the wearer. In addition, clean hygiene is an effective method of stopping infection. Washing one’s hands before and after dealing with sick patients particularly reduces the chance of spreading any disease. These practices, applied to the medical environment, would be enough to eliminate the need for doctors to be vaccinated. The high pressure placed on doctors due the swine flu vaccine is “really sucking the air out of the room to deal with infection control in a more comprehensive manner” (Stein). Instead of a potentially harmful vaccine, these less threatening methods should be the first line of defense for our doctors and nurses.
While the public has been warned of a second outbreak of swine flu, our doctors and nurses should not be forced to take the H1N1 vaccine. The vaccine contains dangerous chemicals linked to several depilating disorders. Other methods of preventing the spread of swine flu such as facemasks and good hygiene are preferable to the vaccine. Nurses and doctors should have control over whether they get the vaccine for the swine flu rather than be pressured by their employers or state governments.
By Jarad Williams
Works Cited
Baylock, Dr. Russell. “Vaccine more dangerous than H1N1 flu.” The Bovine. Wordpress.com, 29 October 2009. Web. 1 November 2009.
“First they came for doctors and nurses.” The Bovine. Wordpress.com, 25 September 2009. Web. 29 October 2009.
Stein, Rob. “Many Health-Care Workers Required to Get Vaccines.” Washingtionpost.com. Washington Post, 26 September 2009. Web. 29 October 2009.
Confusing Contraceptions
Parenthood is one of the hardest jobs a person can have. Raising a child while still in high school though can be even harder. Teen pregnancy is an issue that society has tried to reduce by educating teenagers about ways of pregnancy prevention. Abstinence is stressed as the most effective form of pregnancy prevention, but teenagers are also urged to use other methods if they choose to engage in sexual activity. In order to more effectively prevent teen pregnancy, however, teenage girls should be better informed about the different methods of birth control.
The most well known form of birth control is a condom. What many do not know though is that there are other forms recommended by doctors. According to Planned Parenthood, there are ten different types of birth control that all work differently and may not be best for everyone. There are those such as condoms and the sponge that can be bought over the counter while others such as the daily pill and vaginal ring must be put in by a doctor (Planned Parenthood). It is important for a teenager to be aware of how each works in order for their choice to be as effective as possible.
Although all forms of birth control are supposed to prevent pregnancy, they are not always guaranteed to work. This may be because the female is using her birth control incorrectly, but even if she was, not all forms are still completely effective. Because of this, it is important to understand the effectiveness of which ever method a female may use. According to Planned Parenthood birth control chart, methods such as the cervical cap or the vaginal sponge result in fifteen to twenty-five per hundred females becoming pregnant each year. Other methods that are not over the counter, such as the shot or the patch, however result in only two to eight per hundred females becoming pregnant each year. Knowing about the chances of becoming pregnant while using birth control can inform the user of things to be aware of and ways to make their choice more effective.
While some women may be confident in their choice of birth control, there are also multiple myths that prevent women from having correct information. One common myth that sometimes prevents women from using the pill, for example, is that birth control causes cancer. According to “Steven Goldstein, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine in New York,” though, studies have shown that birth control pills actually reduce the risk of certain cancers if continued to be used correctly (Bouchez 1). Another more common myth, however, is that a tighter condom on the male partner will increase chances of not becoming pregnant. The fact though is that using a tighter condom actually increases a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant because “a condom that is too tight is more likely to burst during intercourse” (Bouchez 2). No matter what method a female may decide to use though, they should always be aware of the myths and facts to better prevent an unintended pregnancy.
Another factor a woman should take into consideration when choosing birth control is what the probability is of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Of the ten existing forms of birth control, the only form that can prevent the transmission of STDs is a condom. Unlike the other forms of birth control, condoms can cover an infected genital area or prevent the exposure of infected secretions from either partner (CDC 1). According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), however, a condom’s protection is only effective if it is used consistently and correctly and covers all the genital areas infected (1). Women who may choose to engage in any sexual relations with multiple people should definitely take this into consideration.
The most important thing for teenagers to know about birth control though is the health risks. Although male and female condoms may only cause irritation or an allergic reaction, all other forms of birth control have more serious health risks (Health and Human Services). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, birth control pills, the patch, and the vaginal ring, for example, may cause blood clots, stroke, heart attack, or vision problems depending on the condition of the patient (1). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also says that diaphragms, sponges, and cervical caps can cause toxic shock syndrome if left in for a long period of time (1). Diaphragms may also cause urinary tract infections, and cervical caps may result in an abnormal pap smear (Health and Human Services). There may also, however, be other side effects that are less serious that teenagers should also be aware before using birth control such as headaches, weight gain, and mood swings (Health and Human Services).
Some would argue that teenage girls should not be informed about birth control because it would make them more prone to engaging in sexual activity. While some girls may choose to use birth control for sexual purposes, it should be noted that others may choose to use it in order to reduce cramps and mood swings during their periods rather than for sexual purposes. Whatever a teenager’s reason may be for choosing to use birth control or not though should remain their business. Either way, all teenage girls should be informed about birth control so they can be confident in their choice of pregnancy prevention.
The most well known form of birth control is a condom. What many do not know though is that there are other forms recommended by doctors. According to Planned Parenthood, there are ten different types of birth control that all work differently and may not be best for everyone. There are those such as condoms and the sponge that can be bought over the counter while others such as the daily pill and vaginal ring must be put in by a doctor (Planned Parenthood). It is important for a teenager to be aware of how each works in order for their choice to be as effective as possible.
Although all forms of birth control are supposed to prevent pregnancy, they are not always guaranteed to work. This may be because the female is using her birth control incorrectly, but even if she was, not all forms are still completely effective. Because of this, it is important to understand the effectiveness of which ever method a female may use. According to Planned Parenthood birth control chart, methods such as the cervical cap or the vaginal sponge result in fifteen to twenty-five per hundred females becoming pregnant each year. Other methods that are not over the counter, such as the shot or the patch, however result in only two to eight per hundred females becoming pregnant each year. Knowing about the chances of becoming pregnant while using birth control can inform the user of things to be aware of and ways to make their choice more effective.
While some women may be confident in their choice of birth control, there are also multiple myths that prevent women from having correct information. One common myth that sometimes prevents women from using the pill, for example, is that birth control causes cancer. According to “Steven Goldstein, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine in New York,” though, studies have shown that birth control pills actually reduce the risk of certain cancers if continued to be used correctly (Bouchez 1). Another more common myth, however, is that a tighter condom on the male partner will increase chances of not becoming pregnant. The fact though is that using a tighter condom actually increases a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant because “a condom that is too tight is more likely to burst during intercourse” (Bouchez 2). No matter what method a female may decide to use though, they should always be aware of the myths and facts to better prevent an unintended pregnancy.
Another factor a woman should take into consideration when choosing birth control is what the probability is of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Of the ten existing forms of birth control, the only form that can prevent the transmission of STDs is a condom. Unlike the other forms of birth control, condoms can cover an infected genital area or prevent the exposure of infected secretions from either partner (CDC 1). According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), however, a condom’s protection is only effective if it is used consistently and correctly and covers all the genital areas infected (1). Women who may choose to engage in any sexual relations with multiple people should definitely take this into consideration.
The most important thing for teenagers to know about birth control though is the health risks. Although male and female condoms may only cause irritation or an allergic reaction, all other forms of birth control have more serious health risks (Health and Human Services). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, birth control pills, the patch, and the vaginal ring, for example, may cause blood clots, stroke, heart attack, or vision problems depending on the condition of the patient (1). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also says that diaphragms, sponges, and cervical caps can cause toxic shock syndrome if left in for a long period of time (1). Diaphragms may also cause urinary tract infections, and cervical caps may result in an abnormal pap smear (Health and Human Services). There may also, however, be other side effects that are less serious that teenagers should also be aware before using birth control such as headaches, weight gain, and mood swings (Health and Human Services).
Some would argue that teenage girls should not be informed about birth control because it would make them more prone to engaging in sexual activity. While some girls may choose to use birth control for sexual purposes, it should be noted that others may choose to use it in order to reduce cramps and mood swings during their periods rather than for sexual purposes. Whatever a teenager’s reason may be for choosing to use birth control or not though should remain their business. Either way, all teenage girls should be informed about birth control so they can be confident in their choice of pregnancy prevention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
