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
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
