Welcome! It is here that you will post your editorial blog entry.
Look below to the Comment section. Simply cut and paste your editorial into the text box,BUT before you do, make sure that you have changed out the MLA formatted upper left hand corner of page one. (Where your name and my name and the date appear) Delete it for the blog post, but keep it for the one that you drop to the drop box to be graded.
Your editorial will start with the title, bolded please, followed on the line below it with “by (your name)” so it looks like a byline of a newspaper editorial. Be sure that both the title and your byline are centered on the page before cutting and pasting it to the blog text box.
A Pet Can Cure All Things
Ashlyn Stephens
Mark was diagnosed with autism when he was only three years old. He would throw tantrums, run away from home, and his communication skills were lacking to say the least. That all changed when his family found a program that used service dogs as companions for children with autism. Now, Mark has a new confidence when talking to school mates and family. He is more at ease and his family is feeling the difference.
Studies have shown that having a pet, like a dog, can help autistic children with communication and social skills. As one can see in the story above, Mark was having trouble communicating until he found companionship with a service dog named Echo. It is for this reason that autistic children struggling with communication and being social should follow in Marks footsteps.
Not all children with autism struggle when it comes to communicating. Some can carry on a conversation just fine and have a better vocabulary than most adults. But for the ones who do, it can be crippling to the families and the child’s teachers at school. According to an article from the Daily Mail written by Mark Prigg, there was a study done on 70 families who had children with autism aging from 8 to 18 years old. About 70% of the families owned a dog and about 50% owned an animal other than a dog, such as a cat, fish, rabbit, or bird while 10% owned no pets. During this study, it was found that the child with autism responded better in social situations than those who did not own a pet. Having a pet helps to remove the social barrier between the child and the person trying to talk to the child.
Not only does having a pet help with social skills, but it also provides for a companion that the child can feel comfortable with. Anyone who has a pet knows that there is a special bond between man and man’s best friend. For a child with autism, a pet or a service dog can be just what the child needs to feel safe in a world that they don’t understand. In an article posted on Pedigree, it explains how dogs can sense human emotions and can even help calm the child down from a wild outburst. Service dogs are trained to help the child in many areas of their life. Helping them calm down from a tantrum and helping them learn how to interact with people are just a few.
While service dogs and other pets are the right fit for some, there are some concerns when it comes to animals being too hyper. An article written by Amy Norton on Health Daily hits on the fact that a dog that is hyper may overwhelm the autistic child. A situation like this would create a negative environment for the child as they do not do well in situations that are chaotic.
Even though there are some negatives, they are nothing compared to the positive effects of an autistic child having a pet. They help as a social lubricant and as said by Gretchen Carlisle who conducted the study on the 70 families in the above paragraphs “When children with disabilities take their service dogs out in public, other kids stop and engage. Kids with autism don’t always readily engage with others, but if there’s a pet in the home that the child is bonded with and a visitor starts asking about the pet, the child may be more likely to respond.” Having the pet creates a situation where the child is comfortable talking and it spreads to areas in their lives where a pet may not be present. The pros really do outweigh the cons.
For autistic children who struggle with communicating or being social, a service dog or other pet may be the answer. Studies have shown that children who are autistic show greater communication skills if their family owns a pet. Service dogs are a great option because they are trained to fit the needs of an individual but any pet will do. Gaining the communication skills come from taking the pet out maybe for a walk and people passing by asking questions about the pet. The child is more open to answering questions about their pet so it serves as a social lubricant, if you will. For any child that is struggling to communicate and has autism, getting a pet may be a solution and is definitely worth looking into!
Increase Minimum Wage
By Ashley Bessette
Struggling to make ends meet? The car payment is due at the end of the month but your paycheck will barely cover the cost? There’s no food in the house, but after bills, you can’t afford groceries? Don’t worry, because the future is looking bright.
According to the New York Times, governor Jerry Brown signed a bill enacting a minimum wage increase that will be in full effect by 2022. Ten dollars per hour will soon be $15 per hour for all minimum wage employees. Minimum wage jobs were originally intended as a starting point for teenagers, such as fast-food jobs and clerk jobs. Childcare providers, first responders, and caregivers are paid minimum wage, and they are overlooked.
Increasing today’s minimum wage would tremendously impact our economy, due to an increase in available funds in the consumer’s pocket. Bank loans would be paid, kitchen cabinets would be stocked, and there would be that extra money available for shopping at the local farmer’s market or mom-and-pop gift shop. CNN ranks our state’s economy at 47 out of the 50 states, so why not take the steps to increase that? Increase consumer spending leads to an increase in government funds, which leads to an increase in Michigan’s economy ranking.
Businesses that conform to the increased minimum wage would, of course, have to payout more towards labor, but in the end, would receive an increased tax break. The US Department of Labor recently busted a myth stating that businesses would fail with the increase in wages, DOL noted that businesses that pay their employees more have reduced employee turnover, which would reduce training and employment costs. Businesses that pay more also create an increase in productivity. Increased productivity leads to a pleased consumer, which would increase sales.
Increased minimum wage is said to have its downfalls, such as a price-hike in products. The funds have to be available to pay the employees a higher wage, sure. Increasing the prices is one sure way to make those funds available. According to the Economic Policy Institute, over 12% of Michigan’s workforce is at a minimum wage rate. That 12% will have increased spending money, allowing the workforce to be able to afford the price-hike. The price-hike will certainly not cause businesses to close their doors for good.
The state of Michigan must increase minimum wage not only to benefit the consumer, the employee, and business, but the increased wage would improve our state’s economy.
Minimum Wage Increase, It’s a Problem.
As a teenager, getting a job for the first time is a scary and exciting moment. You look forward to learning new skills that may eventually help you later on in your future career, but most of all it’s the thought of making your own money and not having to always rely on begging for money from Mom or Dad. You feel more independent and start to understand why your parents are so tight when giving out the cash, you have to earn it. An increase in Minimum Wage will significantly reduce the number of Teenagers and young adults from entering the workforce.
There are some who would say that increased wages would improve our state’s economy. People would have more money in their pockets and would be able to go out and spend more therefore put a greater amount back into the economy. Where would that money for increased wages come from?
The employers aren’t going to dip into their savings to pay employees more. There would have to be a price-hike in products which employers say will be necessary to cover the higher employee wages. Raising the minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. A 2013 article by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago stated that if the minimum wage is increased, fast-food restaurants would pass on almost 100% of their increased labor costs on to consumers and that other firms may do the same. NBC News found that the price of a cup of coffee went up by 10 to 20% in Oakland, California, after a 36% minimum wage hike in the city to $12.25. The report also found a 6.7% rise in coffee prices in Chicago after the minimum wage rose to $10.
Raising the minimum wage would disadvantage low-skilled workers. From an employer’s perspective, people with the lowest skill levels cannot justify higher wages. George Reisman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, stated that if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10, “and the jobs that presently pay $7.25 had to pay $10.10, then workers who previously would not have considered those jobs because of their ability to earn $8, $9, or $10 per hour will now consider them, therefore shutting teenagers and young adults out of the workforce.
In addition, raising the minimum wage would decrease employee benefits and increase tax payments. According to James Sherk, MA, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a single mother working full time and earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would be over $260 a month worse off if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10: “While her market income rises by $494, she loses $71 in EITC [earned income tax credit] refunds, pays $37 more in payroll taxes and $45 more in state income taxes. She also loses $88 in food stamp benefits and $528 in child-care subsidies.”
Sure an increase in minimum wages looks great at first glance, but when you look at the costs to employers and employees, over time will cost both side more money and loss of jobs especially for teenagers and young adults with little to no skills competing for those jobs.
Raising Minimum Wage Won’t Solve Anything
by: Trent Lyons
“Raising minimum wage” sounds good when coming off the tongue, but there are many cons that would go along with doing so. Many of the people pushing for an increase in minimum wage are those trying to make a living off a minimum wage job (which is not intended to be a living wage). Minimum wage should not be raised, as it will cause more harm than relief.
An article from CNBC by Alfredo Ortiz stated “Small-business owners, the vast majority of whom would love to pay their employees more, do not generally make big enough profits to afford a doubling of their labor costs”. This statement indicates that while raising minimum wage would hurt employers’ ability to hire in every business, small businesses would take a big hit. This is especially important considering that employees at small businesses are the ones making the highest wages right now. Not only would raising the minimum wage have no impact on those making minimum wage, but it would negatively impact those who have actually worked to earn raises at small and large businesses.
Raising minimum wage would also result in companies bumping up prices on their products to compensate for the extra cash they are being forced to pay to their employees. According to Tim Worstall, from Forbes, “Raising that minimum wage means a pretty large amount of money flowing to one specific group of people in the economy. Which, given that we’ve not created any new money here, means that some other groups of people must have less money”. This indicates that by forcefully taking money from one population and giving it to another, those who had money taken from them will make changes to regain their lost profits. The main way of doing this would be raising prices on products. This is another example of how a minimum wage increase would not be accomplishing anything—employees are making more but they now have to spend more on everyday purchases (so there is no change in the end…just inflation and less jobs).
The biggest argument for the opposing side is shared in an article from The Huffington Post Los Angeles by Hilda Solis when claiming “Most low-wage workers will immediately spend their increased income by buying goods and services to meet their families’ basic needs. They will purchase these goods and services from local businesses, stimulating our local economy”. This is a common thought among those pushing for an increase in minimum wage. They believe that with more money in the workers’ pockets, the more they will spend. While technically this is true, the extra money that they will be spending will be on products that have had their prices raised. As mentioned earlier, companies would have to bump prices to compensate for the extra cash going out to their workforce.
It is awfully naïve of people to think that forcing companies to pay their employees twice as much will solve poverty. The economy cannot function by the government forcing money to go from one party to another. There will be a lack of money in the spot being taken from, causing a different problem when trying to solve the first one. In this case the second problem would be less jobs and the third problem would be higher prices in the market for those who are working for higher wages (offsetting the extra money they are making). Raising wages will not solve any problems, and that will soon be found out by California when they try bumping them up. Society needs to look more into decisions like this before pulling the trigger. “Raising minimum wage” sounds like a good thing, but most people are not taking the time to look at where that extra pay would be coming from. Companies can’t magically afford to pay employees extra money and it is crucial that people realize that. The money would have to come from another place, causing a new problem there. Raising minimum wage would be a thoughtless and pointless action.
Increasing Minimum Wage: Nothing but Trouble
By Samantha Schlicklin
Living in a state with all jobs starting at $15.00 an hour sounds like a dream. Making more money and buying more material objects. This sounds like the perfect state to move to. These statements are how this dream is sold, however, it cannot become a reality. As with any big dream people do not think of the consequences such as if minimum wage was raised to $15.00 people would lose jobs, work would be harder to come by, businesses would run short staffed, and prices would increase. Final consequences would be the closing of small businesses and people with lesser educations being incapable of obtaining a job. The state of Michigan should not increase minimum wage as it will negatively impact customers, employees, businesses, and our state economy.
The people of Michigan cannot afford for the minimum wage rate to increase. According to the Economic Policy Institute, over 12% of Michigan’s workforce is at a minimum wage rate. This means that over 12% of people who reside in Michigan are relying on minimum wage jobs to be available. As stated by The Detroit News, mandating high wages forces businesses to cut jobs to keep payroll costs manageable — and most of those jobs belong to households that hover around the poverty line. The over 12% of people relying on minimum wage jobs to pay the bills cannot afford to lose their jobs due to businesses cutting jobs. The workforce would cut the jobs of the lowest educated people who work at their place of business first and then increase the education required to apply for a job. The people who need these jobs most would be the first effected.
Amongst other issues, agricultural and other small businesses will suffer as they will be yielding the same gross pay but lose in profit as some profit must go to the increased pay rates. The raising of minimum wage has already been established in a few states including California. It seems as though small businesses will have to close down as their profits will decrease as the years go on. If that seems unreasonable read the following quote from Brian Hibbs, a comic store owner in California, in the Detroit News: “I don’t think this was thought through,” he said. “The cost of labor is so high. It’s very, very difficult to run a profitable business at this point.” Michigan must learn from California’s mistakes. The loss of jobs and businesses could ruin Michigan’s economy completely.
Of course some may argue that with the increase in minimum wage there will be less of a turnover in jobs. In a myth bust researched by the Department of Labor it was found that, higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. What is not stated in a fact like this is that the research was performed in a state where there were also lower paying jobs. This simply means that the people who obtained a higher paying job refused to quit simply by fear of losing their one chance at a higher paying job. If all jobs were to pay the same $15.00 per hour minimum wage the turnover rate would be stay the same as people would be able to walk in and out of jobs and still earn the same pay rate.
Increasing minimum wage in Michigan to $15 an hour is not going to be the answer everyone is looking for. People who are already making minimum wage will lose their jobs and small businesses and agricultural businesses will be short handed or suffer from loss in profits. Instead of raising minimum wage, Michigan should find other ways to make the cost of living more affordable.
April 09, 2016
The Senate Must Vote For a New Supreme Court Justice
By Zachary Nathaniel Wolfer
Once, my sister and I argued over where to eat, as she wanted Taco Bell and I desired McDonald’s. We both craved fast food, but different types, which is eerily reflective of the current debate transpiring in our Senate. On February 13, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Since this tragedy, there has been a tremendous debate of how to fill his vacant seat. Republicans argue to let the American people have a voice by waiting to fill his seat and allow our next President to select Scalia’s replacement, as they hope a Republican will win the presidency and appoint a more conservative judge. On the opposite side, Democrats want our current President to choose. This has led to Republicans stonewalling the Senate and refusing to even hear Obama’s nominee, leaving Americans with a weakened Supreme Court. As mentioned in the article, “Divided U.S. Supreme Court cautious about taking new cases”, our Supreme Court has begun reviewing fewer cases to avoid 4-4 deadlocks. This vacancy has made our Supreme Court ineffective. The Senate must vote to accept/reject Obama’s nominee as waiting will leave our Supreme Court inefficient for almost a year.
The basis for which the Senate has any influence in this dispute is due to our U.S. Constitution, which decrees that they must consent and provide advice on the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the highest power in the land, greater than the President himself. Republican Senators cannot simply ignore this document even if it negatively impacts their political party. A quote from the Constitution itself, “He [The President] shall have the Power…and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court”, clearly demonstrates the Senate must approve or deny Obama’s nominee, instead of simply stalling.
We need the Senate to vote affirmative or dissent, as our Supreme Court is struggling with only eight members and deadlocks ensuing. Supreme Court lawyer John Elwood says, “The Court is being especially selective in choosing which cases to grant,” due to the vacant seat. This is demonstrative of the problem’s being caused by the vacancy. If the Supreme Court cannot come to a decision, then the issue remains unresolved and the lower court decision remains in effect. Our current Supreme Court has only agreed to hear three minor cases for this period, whereas they usually review eight. Lawyer Jeffery Wall believes that the current court will limit itself to cases that are, “more likely to reach consensus and clarify the law,” rather than taking more serious and controversial cases. This is evidence of the shortcomings of our eight-person Justice Supreme Court. The Senate is not required to accept Obama’s nominee, but they must be willing to cooperate on finding a suitable replacement so that America doesn’t have to struggle with an ineffectual Supreme Court.
One of the main arguments of the Senators who challenge Obama’s right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice is that Americans should have a voice in who fills the vacancy. Many Senators believe that citizens should have a say in this decision by electing a new President who will nominate a Justice that they support to fill Scalia’s seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
The American people should be heard in the decision to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, just as we hold sway in all other areas of our government. This is a government by and for the people, and the people must have a say in who is appointed to positions of power in order for this to be a democracy. In, “Separating Facts and Fictions to Replace Justice Antonin Scalia”, the PPD Staff mentions “Thurmond Rule”, which is a tradition that gives the ruling party the option to delay when a nominee for the Supreme Court is selected during a presidential election. However, American citizens did have a voice in the decision over Scalia’s replacement, when they elected Obama in 2012. In addition, the “Thurmond Rule” is shown in that same article to not be codified law, meaning that it cannot override the duties that are laid out in the Constitution for Senators. Our President is fulfilling his duties to the American people, just as we appointed him to.
Whether or not the Senate approves Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, they must vote to do so as it is their constitutional responsibility. The best way to solve this senatorial deadlock would be to simply hold hearings and votes in order to let Senators individually decide if they approve of Obama’s nominee.
Increased Minimum Wage Will Lead to an Economic Downfall
By: Brie Kissane
Many states have explored the option of increasing the minimum wage, and a few states have started implementing this new wage. In business and factory industries, the minimum wage increase would make an impact on all aspects of a business. These increases would work their way from management to the consumers, and would result in a cost of business that many companies cannot afford. These extra costs will lead to less jobs and less money flowing through the economy.
When employment costs are raised, less people are hired for each company. This leads to less employee turnover, making the market tighter and bringing more preferred workers to an industry. While reduced turnover seems like a good thing, it means that less people are getting the opportunity to get a job due to less employers looking to hire people frequently. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that the biggest change will come to high schoolers that are employed. These students and other uneducated individuals already have a high turnover rate since their jobs are temporary. Having a job for these individuals is more of a ways to a mean, not what they actually want to do with their lives. A higher minimum wage is not needed for such temporary positions.
Not only will less people have opportunity, but higher wages means a heavy economic effect on consumers. The National Employment Law Project projects that doubling the minimum wage in some states will lead to a four to five percent increase in prices, or businesses will have to cut costs. These costs would be in the form of workers hours, and sometimes the employee altogether. Smaller businesses will especially have a hard time keeping up with the change. Two sports businesses in California reported that the recently passed employment hike may mean a 25 percent increase in prices for their company and its customers. When a company has to raise its prices, that new cost will have an impact on the customers. Some items may be worth the cost hike, but in many cases this will irritate customers and decreases the likelihood for them to buy items that they do not absolutely need.
Supporters of the minimum wage hike believe that increased wages will mean happier consumers. The minimum wage has never stayed consistent with the inflation rate of the economy, resulting in a lower value of the average paycheck. If the government increases the wages to fit inflation, workers would be able to spend their extra money, and the cost wouldn’t be bore on the consumer. In the Intereconomics journal, Daniel Hamermesh explored this idea of inflation and only could come to one conclusion. That conclusion was that the minimum wage hike was mostly a result of the government making up for the shortcomings it had in the past due to inflation rates. No presidency has accurately held minimum wage to an acceptable standard of living, and Hamermesh communicated that this would bring more funds and ultimately more success to the economy.
With the minimum wage approaching 15 dollars an hour businesses may be forced to find new ways to make their business cost efficient. For some industries robots and computers may begin to take the place of workers, and in other industries the businesses may leave a state altogether. In a day of equal employment it seems that this implementation of law would mean less people will have an opportunity to succeed, and it hardly seems right to take away someone’s chance to provide for themselves or their family. The minimum wage increase would not benefit businesses, and it would harm the consumers ability to keep the economy in check.
What’s Really Behind the Flint Water Crisis?
By: Bernita Kissane
When people think of unhealthy water they think of third world nations. No one expects it to be in the United States. No one expects politicians to knowingly ignore the problem. The crisis has been going on for months. According to emails that Governor Rick Snyder produced, the heads of the State of Michigan have known this could end up being an issue for over two years at this point. Many residents have to resort to using bottled water for all functions of their daily lives; something costly and unpredictable for a city that is predominantly lower class. The government should be doing more for this situation, and if it took place in East Lansing, or New York this would not be such an issue. The Flint water crisis is driven by poverty and discrimination from head officials of the Michigan government.
Flint is one of the poorest communities in the lower part of Michigan. With 40 percent of the population living below the poverty line, there is no money that the people can provide to assist with the care of this situation. An older city like Flint requires more upkeep and a better system. With people continuously getting sick, hospitals cannot treat them all, especially because so many of these hospitals have the same water problems. Virginia Tech professor, Marc Edwards, first brought the contamination to light, detailing the 500 billion parts of lead in multiple samples throughout Flint. He cited in his report that “one glass of water could cause a child’s lead blood level to elevate above the lead poisoning threshold by eight times.” The water was not safe for anyone in the house, and for almost a year they had not idea.
What may be worse about the water crisis than the health risks, is the way the government chose to deal with the situation. When General Motors pulled their use of the Flint River water in 2014, red flags should have been given to the governor. According to multiple state workers, two months later the state building in Flint switched to using all bottled water, supposedly for the cost benefit of the government. These patterns are especially dangerous for the lower class who continued to be affected and could not afford the health care to resolve the issue. Flint City Councilwoman Jackie Poplar thanked governor Snyder for his effort to give 1,500 purity filter to Flint on September 10th. Snyder defended himself against allegations saying that he was not made aware of the situation until almost December, so it’s hard to see how he could participate in this way without knowledge of a problem.
Although it may seem like this is an all bad situation, many believed this was a good solution to Flint’s problems. In a city that was in a financial crisis, cutting five million dollars from the budget annually was an enticing offer. For the first few months, the switch seemed to be fine and more people thought this was a good idea, than those who opposed it. The Flint crisis manager at the time handled the situation at the forefront, even receiving praise from the Environmental Protection Agency for finding a middle ground that would benefit the people.
Mike Glasgow, a supervisor at a Flint water plant warned that the water switch would end badly. Most water treatment switches require a year of water testing before a decision can be made on whether or not the water is safe. In Flint, the government overruled this testing and treatment time and switched the water prematurely. Even if the government did not intentionally poison the people, it did not take the safeguards need to protect them either. EPA officials and heads of the states acknowledged this issue and their part in enabling it, and resigned when the scandal first broke. By pushing the issue past the projected timeline, the government played a pivotal role in starting this issue.
There is no denying that Flint water is not safe left untreated. The people need help, and not being able to support those programs leave no other option than to ask the government to step up and right its wrong. While no one can take back what has become a dangerous water switch, it can be learned from. New implementation in water safety and crisis situations could ensure that history does not get the chance to repeat itself.
Teenage Sexting Is Not Child Pornography
Ben Airola
A seventeen year old from North Carolina faces child pornography charges for exchanging nude photographs with his seventeen year old girlfriend. Not only is he being faced with sex offender charges, which could in and of themselves ruin his life, he also risks up to 10 years in jail as he is being tried as an adult. Though some states have passed underage sexting laws to reduce the charges placed on minors, the majority of states still consider teenage sexting to be child pornography. Two consenting teenagers of similar ages that choose to sext each other shouldn’t be faced with child pornography charges for the digital equivalent of flirting. In my opinion the harsh consequences to sexting that teens face such as prison time and registration to the sex offender list are a criminal injustice, and a massive waste of time and money for all officials involved. Consensual teenage sexting should not be considered child pornography.
In many states, teenagers who take explicit photos of themselves are considered both the victims and offenders of child pornography laws. In the case of the seventeen year old from North Carolina, he is being tried as an adult because he is over the age of sexual consent. Interestingly enough, he is legally considered an adult for the purposes of possessing sexual pictures of a minor, and as a minor in the photographs he took of himself. Clearly something needs to be changed, as a person shouldn’t be considered both an adult and a minor in terms of sexual maturity. Sexting laws (or the absence thereof) have egregious faults that result in innocent teenagers being punished as if they were maliciously spreading child pornography, when in reality they are just consensually flirting in an inappropriate way. A way that certainly doesn’t warrant years in jail and a ruined life. Kristina Moon and Marsha Levick, attorney and co-founder of the Juvenile Law Center respectively, argue that compared to child pornography, sexting typically “occurs without the exploitative circumstances that are central to the production of conventional child pornography.” Why then should a consensual activity face the same punishment as the generally exploitative and abusive act of true child pornography production and distribution?
In addition to the unjustly harsh consequences for consensual underage sexting, adolescents have underdeveloped brains. This is important, as currently many teens face sentencing as an adult, when in reality their brains haven’t developed enough to allow for complex and rational decision making. There is even legal precedence acknowledging the fact that adolescents are less culpable for crimes than adults. A study published in the New York Academy of Sciences shows that adolescence is characterized by sub-optimal decisions, in part because the brains of adolescents have underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes. This specific part of the brain is responsible for decision making.
Sexting can result in extremely negative consequences for teens, and not just from a legal point of view. Once the pictures have been sent, the teen no longer has any control over who sees the photos. The person they sent it to could share it with friends, the whole school, or upload it online. This means that sexting can do serious damage to a teenager’s reputation, lasting even into adulthood. Leaked explicit photos can also result in severe bullying of the teen, and in some rare cases this bullying has resulted in the teenager committing suicide. Around 30% of teenagers surveyed said that they have had sexually explicit pictures that were originally intended for someone else shown to them.
It is certainly true that sexting can – and has – resulted in bullying and suicide. There have also been some cases where adults have had their teenage sexts come up online and harm their reputation and career. Though the issues with underage sexting are clear and valid, I don’t think that they necessitate the charges being a felony. Instead of punishing two consenting teenagers for their innocent – though irresponsible – behavior, more should be done against the distributor of the sexts and the bullies that can push teenage victims to commit suicide.
The legal consequences for child pornography charges are reasonable, and I don’t think anyone is willing to argue that child pornography itself should be legal. However, consensual teen sexting isn’t the same thing as child pornography, the circumstances are different and they shouldn’t be treated the same way in terms of punishment. That isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be any repercussions for adolescent sexting, though the charges should depend on the situation. I don’t think there should be any repercussions for two consenting teenagers. However if there is any hint of manipulation or further distribution by one of the teens, there should be legal consequences. Outside of fringe cases that include bullying and abuse, no teenager deserves to have their life ruined over the victimless act of consensual sexting.
Chris Lokinski
Title of Editorial: Teenage Sexting Is Not Child Pornography
Title of YOUR Rebuttal: Teenage Sexting is considered pornography
Claim from Editorial: Ben Airola stated “Consensual teenage sexting should not be considered child pornography. Claim for your Rebuttal: Teenage Sexting should be considered child pornography, if they are underage. Editorial Con Point Research:(their con point becomes one of your pro points) Most states have a law on sexting and pornography.
Rebuttal Pro Point Research: (fact, quote or statistic) According to Sarah Thompson, “Law-makers in some states have noted the problem of minor sexting and have created sexting specific statues that regulate the creation, transmission, or possession of sexualized images of minors specifically by minors. For instance, according to the Florida State Legislature, a minor engages in sexting when “he or she knowingly: uses a computer, or any other device capable of electronic data transmission or distribution, to transmit or distribute to another minor any photograph or video of any person which depicts nudity… and is harmful to minors” or “possesses [any such] photograph or video of any person that was transmitted or distributed by another minor.”4 Other states have applied traditional child pornography laws to situations that involve minors sexting.”
Other Rebuttal Pro Point: Sexting can lead to a bad reputation for the teenager involved. Research for this Pro Point 🙁 fact, quote or statistic) Teenagers don’t realize what the consequences could be. “It could be shared with people you don’t intend to share it with. The person you are sexting might forward it to just one or two friends, who forward it to a few more, and so on. Or somebody else using that phone could stumble across it by accident. Or the recipient could decide to spread it around if they get mad at you.”
Rebuttal Con Point:( this is one of the editorial pro points) “Consensual teen sexting isn’t the same thing as child pornography, the circumstances are different and they shouldn’t be treated the same way in terms of punishment. That isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be any repercussions for adolescent sexting, though the charges should depend on the situation.” Final Summary Point in Editorial: (this is in the conclusion paragraph)
“Outside of fringe cases that include bullying and abuse, no teenager deserves to have their life ruined over the victimless act of consensual sexting.”
Final Summary Point in Rebuttal
However, if the teenagers are underage their parents should be watching more carefully. If the teenager is doing sexting then they should be stopped.
Teenage Sexting is Classified as Child Pornography
By Taylor Thrush
The twenty-first century is best known for its electronic age, all kinds of bullying, selfishness, and over sexualization. Combine all four of these best known things of the century and one of the many outcomes is sexting, which is the act of sending explicit photos or videos via cell phone. This phenomenon started almost simultaneously with the creation of the “picture phone,” referring to cell phones with cameras. Now that picture phones and smartphones are so easily accessible and parents are so busy, more often than not, teens have these types of phones in their possession. Recently though, teenagers with the freedom to use these devices, have found themselves getting into legal trouble while having fun sexting their peers. Although it is consensual, any distribution of sexually explicit photos between minors should be considered child pornography.
Teenagers are generally irresponsible when it comes to things that they perceive to be petty. Teenage sexting is not just irresponsible, though, it is classified as child pornography and a felony whose acts can result in further detriments than high school bullying. According to legal researchers from HG.org, child pornography can be defined as any visual deception involving the use of a minor (someone under the age of 18), or one appearing to be a minor, engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Visual depictions include photographs, film, video, pictures, or computer-generated images or pictures.
Luckily, more and more states have begun to implement laws against teenage sexting. North Carolina is one of the thirty-two sates that have enforced these laws to try and prevent the exploitation of minors. Recently North Carolina has had a few minors in court being charged with child pornography because of the fact that they had explicit content of minors, including themselves, in their possession. According to Criminal Defense Lawyer, electronic enticement—trying to get a minor to commit sexual acts—is a Class H felony punishable by four to twenty-five months in prison, but if it appears that the defendant has met the minor, it moves up to a Class G felony and is punishable by eight to thirty-one months of imprisonment. Any child pornography in North Carolina is a Class C felony and punishable by forty-four to one hundred and eighty-two months in prison. To add to the list, all of these felonies also put the defendant on the registered sex offenders list—for life. So in all of these cases, it does not matter if consent was given, having possession or trying to get possession of explicit content from minors is a felony.
While this may be true, if a person is of age to consent to sexual acts(which is sixteen in most states), they should have the freedom to do so without facing federal charges. Teenagers are being punished to the extreme for receiving and sending explicit content to peers, even if they are of age to legally consent. A University of Wisconsin law professor, Justin Patchin, told the Post “It’s dysfunctional to be charged with possession of your own image. I don’t think it should be a criminal offense where there is no victim.” Professor Patchin makes a good point, if there is consent, there is no victim of the crime. However, a victim can be created easier than one may think.
The CEO of a website called uKnow wrote an article about consequences of teen sexting. Steven Woda, the CEO, says that in his top three of seven consequences, on can endure embarrassment by fellow peers, internet explorers and gain a bad reputation for themselves, just be deciding to press “send.” Woda says, “If the photo is leaked online, you have officially lost all control of it.” Consequently teenage sexting, a.k.a “child pornography” is not only illegal, but almost entirely detrimental to those who participate in it.
Abusing your dog is finally out of style.
Yes, abusing your dog is finally out of style. While it may seem a crude thing to say, it is entirely true. Unfortunately, pets are often treated like animated toys, and still we have such human like expectations for their behavior and obedience. While their capacity to learn and excel is amazing, they are canines, definitely not humans. Training techniques of the past are becoming taboo as we learn more about animal behavior.
Say the dog craps on the carpet while you are away. You return, find the pile, drag him by his collar over to his hideous heap and show him while you simultaneously yell “BAD DOG”. What you taught your dog is that when you get home, you are a jerk. A dog going outside to poop is the result of training that has become routine. He does not understand the morality of crapping on the floor or the cost of carpet replacement. He won’t associate your punishment with the action of pooping on the carpet unless you catch him in the process, and he still won’t be sorry. He had to go.
Force free training is also easier. It is much simpler to train a creature when you consider its own capacity to learn. Force free training avoids negative or aversive methods and tools. This method is based on manipulating natural animal behavior as opposed to assimilation to human expectations. Force Free training does not rely on physical punishments. For a dog that pulls on leash, trainers a decade ago were quick to add a choke chain or a pronged collar to punish the behavior of pulling rather than to take the time to train the dog to want to walk at your pace.
This is important because in the bigger picture, using negative training styles risks developing much larger problems for the dog. A dog that is punished for growling at a child taunting him, will not give warning next time. A dog that is choked or poked from his collar each time he is on walk and sees another dog, will soon affiliate seeing other dogs with the anticipation of pain. That is how they learn. Dogs with bad habits end up in shelters.
Force Free training is proving to be more successful in the long run. The study of animal behavior is an intricate science that has progressed rapidly in the last 10 years. With new information comes improved methods. A local service dog trainer with Stiggys, a non-profit organization that trains and matches service dogs with military veterans says “dogs simply respond to positive training methods better.”
Certainly, people have obedient dogs from traditional “hands on” methods. There is a trainer with a TV show still teaching what is referred to as “dominance training” with a vast following of fans and defenders of his methods. People tend to trust what always has been, rather than trying something new. The trainer famous for his dominance rolls and forceful methods has over nine million followers on just one social media platform, Facebook.
As a force free trainer, Jacqueline from Stiggy’s organization, can see how people would fall into his way of thinking. “He uses words like ‘leader’ and ‘dominant’ and those are terms people also use to describe the hierarchy of a wolf pack in the wild. These dynamics can’t be applied here. The family dog isn’t competing with you to be the ‘alpha’.” She says.
It is important to correctly read a dog’s body language from a dog’s perspective without making assumptions or humanizing them. They simply do not have the understanding that a human does. “Dominant training focuses on punishing the ‘bad’ things a dog does, without any redirection to good habits. This leaves the dog to focus on avoiding punishment rather than actually learning.” Jacqueline says. “A dog wants nothing more than to please you, and get a treat.”
The new take on dog training is positive, literally. The idea is to redirect bad behavior into good behavior that you reward. A Barking dog learns to only bark when told “speak” by reward, rather than to punish the dog for barking when you don’t want it to bark. Positive training produces a much happier canine and goes a long way to expand the human and animal relationship.
Congressional salaries: Should work be required
Let’s be honest, there’s a certain section of our population who are takers. Every day they wait on taxpayer dollars to pay for their meals, shelter, and transportation; all the while they give little to nothing back to the American public.
I refuse to accept the argument that their problems are greater than the rest of ours, or that the issues are systemic; handed down from generations past. No! These people just don’t want to be productive. I’d like to introduce the 114th U.S. congress the most inefficient, counterproductive federal legislators in living memory.
America’s “fierce individualism” is world renown. Our cultures commitment to individual industriousness is so important; the 114th U.S. congress recently passed legislation making employment a prerequisite for receiving public assistance with food. The message is clear; if you don’t want to work you shouldn’t eat in America. That’s fine. Let’s take this same standard and apply it to all people receiving taxpayer dollars like, say, the 114th U.S. congress. If our legislators are so convinced that doing work promotes personal responsibility, self-worth and dignity; then they should be held to the same standards. Remember the death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, and how senate leader Mitch McConnell vowed not to approve his replacement until after the 2016 presidential election. Well, how many of you could get away with that at your job? I propose withholding the pay and benefits of legislators who are more committed to gridlock and obstruction then doing their job, this will obviously increase the efficiency of our government.
Believe it or not. Congresses pay has consistently increased over the past 20 years. Yes, they must be convinced they’re doing something right, because since 1990 a congressman’s annual pay has increased by more than 100% according to Ballotpedia. Meanwhile, as Thomas Mann and Ornstein Norman illustrate in their Foreign Policy article “Yes, congress is that bad”, the government shutdown of 2013 was the second worst in U.S. history and rendered millions of Americans who depend on public assistance waiting in the dark. This demonstrated a total lack accountability.
Unbelievably, intricate minutia of federal budget agreements aren’t the only places theses do-nothing congressman are failing. Take what should be the easy part of their jobs confirming nominations for federal offices. The death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia was saddening enough, but to watch senate majority leader Mitch McConnell openly admit to delaying the confirmation due to political reasons sent yet another blow to the American psyche. In addition, the Supreme Court vacancy isn’t the only judgeship congress has refused to fill. Last year, the Senate confirmed just 11 federal judges, the fewest in any year since 1960, according to Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann’s “Yes, congress is that bad” article.
In defense of our diligent congressman; the job of a legislator is difficult and complex. The article “The rhetoric of fear and partisan entrenchment” written by Molly J. Walker for Law and Psychology Review delves into this topic with greater detail. She mentions that out of the 535 members of the U.S. congress a tiny minority are able to get a bill made into a law; roughly 4%. This would make grading our public officials based on the amount of laws they were able to pass ridiculous and to that point is concede.
Never the less, it is painfully obvious there is a disconnect in America. The return we are receiving on our legislative branch is not worth the investment. It’s only reasonable that the investment; in this case taxpayer dollars, should be withheld until the obstructions culture in Washington is remedied.
Benjamin Price
Professor Kelly
Writing 122
11 April 2016
Lower the MLDA: 21 to 18
Should their be strict limitations on substances that cause harm to our body? The Food and Drug Administration regulate a broad range of substances. The FDA regulates all of the drugs available in America, over-the-counter and prescription. They regulate foods and food products such as dietary supplements, food additives, infant formulas, and bottled water. If the FDA controls who can have access to things like prescription drugs, why can’t they control who is allowed to have alcohol. Why have we as a society put a broad age based restriction on alcohol while drugs like morphine can be given to anyone in pain including children? In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession of alcohol to twenty-one. The way we limit who can purchase and possess alcohol is not effective. The pros of having a MLDA or minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one does not out-weigh the cons. Many would argue that having such a severe restriction on alcohol actually increases irresponsible binge drinking among teens. The age of purchase and possession of alcohol should be lowered from twenty-one to the age of eighteen because adults should be granted the freedoms of adulthood at the same time they are burdened with the responsibilities.
At the age of eighteen, Americans are burdened with many responsibilities. Serving on juries, electing the president, signing contracts and getting drafted into the military are a few examples of this. If you are required by law to put your life on the line for your country or entrusted with the responsibility of being an informed voter to elect the President of the United States of America, then you should be able to have a beer. Government shouldn’t be able to tell individuals they are allowed to die for their country but they aren’t allowed to purchase or possess alcohol. A Los Angeles Times article reported that, “In Alaska, a bill was . . . introduced that would allow active members of the military to drink at the age of eighteen, with the rationale that if they’re old enough to fight and die for their country, they’re old enough to have a beer.”
Since the times of Adam and Eve deeming something the forbidden fruit only makes it more desirable. Keeping the drinking age at twenty-one does not limit the availability of alcohol it only inconveniences the underage population in acquiring it. Such high age limits make drinking an act of adulthood, making teens want to do it. Teens are still drinking despite the age restrictions. This is not an effective way to stop drinking. It has only been proven to be effective at making teens seek creative ways to acquire alcohol and then creating an irresponsible environment for teens to drink. This is important because keeping the drinking age so high is not stopping teens from drinking. It is only changing how they go about it. In a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism survey nearly 75% of 8th graders also say that it’s “fairly or very easy” to get alcohol.
It is argued by prohibitionists that alcohol affects teen performance in school. This is only true when alcohol is consumed in abundance such as binge drinking. Countries that have a lower drinking age are consistently experiencing less problems with binge drinking among teens. This is important because prohibitionists use this argument as one of their main points for arguing against lowering the drinking age. A recent study led by neuroscientist Susan Tapert of the University of California, San Diego compared the brain scans of teens who drink heavily with the scans of teens who don’t. Tapert’s team found damaged nerve tissue in the brains of the teens who drank. The researchers believe this damage negatively affects attention span in boys, and girls’ ability to comprehend and interpret visual information.
Although there is scientific data supporting the claim that alcohol abuse can cause damage to the brain, there is also evidence supporting the claim that teens who have legal access to alcohol are less likely to abuse alcohol and learn to drink responsibly. Karis Rogerson grew up in Italy where the MLDA is 16. Rogerson said, “As a child who grew up in Italy, I was familiar with alcohol from a young age. From drinking communion wine at church to sipping champagne at New Year’s Eve and being able to buy alcohol by the summer after tenth grade, I was never in awe of it.” According to a survey by World Life Expectancy, the death rate by alcohol per 100,000 people in America is 2.91, making it 39th highest in the world. Whereas the death rate by alcohol per 100,000 people in Italy is 0.37, making it 111th in the world. These figures refer to alcohol poising. This statistical data in addition to a first hand account from someone who lived in Italy and America is more than enough proof that there is a safer solution to alcohol abuse among youth other than prohibition.
It is clear that the current MLDA of twenty-one only encourages rebellious drinking by teens, while not fitting the role of adulthood supposedly cast upon eighteen-year-olds. Government can’t burden eighteen-year-olds with the responsibilities of adulthood without giving equal privileges of drinking. The solution to this problem is to start treating the eighteen-year-old members of society who vote, serve on juries, enlist in the military, and get married, as adults and allow those adults to purchase and possess alcohol.
Brandon Wright was a sophomore at the University of Minnesota, in an Honors Program and also on academic scholarship. One morning, he was found dead on the upper floor at an off-campus apartment—a well-known party spot. He had been drinking straight shots of hard liquor, passed out and lay unconscious for hours while people partied and danced around him. He was a bright student with a promising future, but his body couldn’t handle it this night. Why didn’t anyone check on him? This is because passing out at college parties is almost normal in their atmosphere. If someone passes out, it signifies how “wild” the party was making them more desirable in the end. Consequently, similar behavior repeats itself until something extreme happens. This is only one of many fatal cases that have resulted because of alcohol abuse. Something must be done to stop this. Because binge drinking is a problem in our country, the legal drinking age should remain the same.
In an article titled, “Lower the MLDA: 21 to 18,” Benjamin Price describes an experience in which an Italian women, who moved to the United States, grew up with different drinking customs. He quotes, “Karris Rogerson grew up in Italy where the MLDA is 16. I was familiar with alcohol from a young age. From drinking communion wine at church to sipping champagne at New Year’s Eve and being able to buy alcohol by the summer after tenth grade.” Then he adds, “The death rate by alcohol per 100,000 people in America is 2.91, making it 39th highest in the world. Whereas the death rate by alcohol per 100,000 people in Italy is 0.37, making it 111th in the world. This statistical data in addition to a first-hand account from someone who lived in Italy and America is more than enough proof that there is a safer solution to alcohol abuse among youth other than prohibition.” This may be true for Italy, but not for the United States. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reported, “Nearly 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it 4th leading preventable cause of death in the United States.” The death-rate by alcohol in the United States may be ranked 39th highest in the world, but in our country it’s the 4th leading cause. This means we have too many deaths pertaining to alcohol consumption alone and that’s a problem.
What makes the situation even worse is the fact that adolescents are heavily involved. As children transition from adolescent to young adulthood, they are faced with many changes. Developmental transitions, such as puberty and increasing independence, have been factors associated with alcohol use. So in a sense, just being an adolescent may be a key risk factor not only for starting to drink but also for drinking dangerously. The NIAAA also found, “Binge drinking is a common problem in adolescents as well as adults. In a 2013 survey, 60 million Americans, representing 22% of the population, 12 years of age and older engaged in binge drinking in the previous month.” That is way too many people for only a month of research.
On the contrary, Benjamin Price further notes, “Keeping the drinking age at twenty-one does not limit the availability of alcohol it only inconveniences the underage population in acquiring it.” This is true. However the goal is not to limit the availability of it. It’s to stop alcohol abuse in our country, which is a leading preventable cause. The key thing here is the fact that these deaths can be prevented. This is why the legal drinking age is in place. In “Clinical guidelines: Binge drinking in adolescents,” Neil Skolnik brings up another issue in our country that’s a result of binge drinking. He states, “Adolescents who engage in binge drinking have an increased rate of high-risk sexual activity, which may result in a sexually transmitted infection as well as an unplanned pregnancy.” Sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy is also on the rise in the United States. Binge drinking affects more things than just the individual in the act. That is why legal precautions are needed.
After all, the legal drinking age does more good than harm. Benjamin Price concludes, “It is clear that the current MLDA of twenty-one only encourages rebellious drinking by teens, while not fitting the role of adulthood supposedly cast upon eighteen year-olds.” This may be true but because binge drinking is a problem in our country, the legal drinking age should remain the same. There is nothing wrong with having a drink or two. The problem is with those who drink excessively and can’t control their actions. If people were more responsible with their drinking then the limit would probably be similar to a country like Italy.
Editorial Rebuttal ~ Waking Up Adult
The idea that the drinking age is 21, despite that we are considered adults at 18 may seem age arbitrary. Based on the “forbidden fruit” theory, it could be theorized that laws may actually increase the desire and consumption of alcohol by minors.
The decision to raise the drinking age to 21 was actually not haphazard. Raising the drinking age to 21 was based on statistical and scientific research. Also, a gallop poll from 2014 says that only 25% of Americans would even support the lowering of our drinking age. Neuroscientist Susan Taoert from the University of California points out that alcohol consumption at an early age damages nerve tissue in the brain. Vivian Faden is a scientist at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) expands on that by saying “for humans, this means binge drinking during adolescence may permanently change brain functioning,” she adds, “These changes appear to be irreversible.”
Looking to other countries, like Italy, from which to base our own laws is futile. Sticking to the comparison with Italy, in Italy the overall view of alcohol consumption is starkly different than our own here in the United States. In a book titled “A Cultural Case Study,” written by Blum, R.H., and Blum, E.M., the authors point out that when drinking is integrated into religious ceremony and social custom of a culture, consumption becomes regulated by tradition and pride. Contrary, in American culture where alcohol has no set patterns of behavior based on tradition or pride, the results are often asocial behavior, as well as a high rate of alcoholism.
If we put credence in the forbidden fruit theory, we could similarly suggest we legalize many things that “people do anyway”. Prostitution for example, or substances other than alcohol. If we legalize drinking at 18, since they are drinking anyway, it puts less validity in many of our laws. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported over multiple spans of years, the number one cause of death for people ages 15-20 are motor vehicle crashes and at the change of the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, the numbers clearly decreased.
The 18th birthday grants numerous rights and privileges that include voting, gambling, enlisting in the military and marriage. To prohibit a person from having a beer seems futile.
The difference with all of these things is that when making the decision to vote, gamble, marry or enlist at 18 years of age, the person is doing so with a clear head. Alcohol consumption inhibits ones normal boundaries and behaviors. The experience one gets from age 18 to 21 in the matters of life, law and legal responsibility are valuable tools for when the age of 21, drinking alcohol is legal. It is true that people consume alcohol before they reach that legal threshold, statistically it has proven to be risky behavior with many times disastrous consequences. The only benefit I can see to allow alcohol legally, earlier, would be an increase in revenue for the states, and possibly for county courts and jails, but it is hard to see benefits for the intoxicated 18 year old.
The Senate Must Vote For a New Supreme Court Justice
By Zachary Nathaniel Wolfer
Once, my sister and I argued over where to eat, as she wanted Taco Bell and I desired McDonald’s. We both craved fast food, but different types, which is eerily reflective of the current debate transpiring in our Senate. On February 13, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. Since this tragedy, there has been a tremendous debate of how to fill his vacant seat. Republicans argue to let the American people have a voice by waiting to fill his seat and allow our next President to select Scalia’s replacement, as they hope a Republican will win the presidency and appoint a more conservative judge. On the opposite side, Democrats want our current President to choose. This has led to Republicans stonewalling the Senate and refusing to even hear Obama’s nominee, leaving Americans with a weakened Supreme Court. As mentioned in the article, “Divided U.S. Supreme Court cautious about taking new cases”, our Supreme Court has begun reviewing fewer cases to avoid 4-4 deadlocks. This vacancy has made our Supreme Court ineffective. The Senate must vote to accept/reject Obama’s nominee as waiting will leave our Supreme Court inefficient for almost a year.
The basis for which the Senate has any influence in this dispute is due to our U.S. Constitution, which decrees that they must consent and provide advice on the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is the highest power in the land, greater than the President himself. Republican Senators cannot simply ignore this document even if it negatively impacts their political party. A quote from the Constitution itself, “He [The President] shall have the Power…and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court”, clearly demonstrates the Senate must approve or deny Obama’s nominee, instead of simply stalling.
We need the Senate to vote affirmative or dissent, as our Supreme Court is struggling with only eight members and deadlocks ensuing. Supreme Court lawyer John Elwood says, “The Court is being especially selective in choosing which cases to grant,” due to the vacant seat. This is demonstrative of the problem’s being caused by the vacancy. If the Supreme Court cannot come to a decision, then the issue remains unresolved and the lower court decision remains in effect. Our current Supreme Court has only agreed to hear three minor cases for this period, whereas they usually review eight. Lawyer Jeffery Wall believes that the current court will limit itself to cases that are, “more likely to reach consensus and clarify the law,” rather than taking more serious and controversial cases. This is evidence of the shortcomings of our eight-person Justice Supreme Court. The Senate is not required to accept Obama’s nominee, but they must be willing to cooperate on finding a suitable replacement so that America doesn’t have to struggle with an ineffectual Supreme Court.
One of the main arguments of the Senators who challenge Obama’s right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice is that Americans should have a voice in who fills the vacancy. Many Senators believe that citizens should have a say in this decision by electing a new President who will nominate a Justice that they support to fill Scalia’s seat. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice, therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
The American people should be heard in the decision to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, just as we hold sway in all other areas of our government. This is a government by and for the people, and the people must have a say in who is appointed to positions of power in order for this to be a democracy. In, “Separating Facts and Fictions to Replace Justice Antonin Scalia”, the PPD Staff mentions “Thurmond Rule”, which is a tradition that gives the ruling party the option to delay when a nominee for the Supreme Court is selected during a presidential election. However, American citizens did have a voice in the decision over Scalia’s replacement, when they elected Obama in 2012. In addition, the “Thurmond Rule” is shown in that same article to not be codified law, meaning that it cannot override the duties that are laid out in the Constitution for Senators. Our President is fulfilling his duties to the American people, just as we appointed him to.
Whether or not the Senate approves Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, they must vote to do so as it is their constitutional responsibility. The best way to solve this senatorial deadlock would be to simply hold hearings and votes in order to let Senators individually decide if they approve of Obama’s nominee.
Micromanagement: Choking Under Pressure
By Breighn Lehmann
The knowledgeable Theodore Roosevelt once said “the best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it”. It appears these wise words have fallen onto the deaf ears of many of today’s managers.
Micromanagement is not only a term that is heard all too often in the workplace now of days, but it’s also experienced all too often, as well. Research indicates that 40 percent of workers are frequently or occasionally micromanaged by immediate supervisors. In addition, 90 percent of executives surveyed have experienced working with at least one micromanager. While managing employees includes guiding them, overseeing their work and helping employees increase their potential, doing so in extreme can be a problem, and detrimental to the workplace.
Covered by this management umbrella lie several potential performance issues, such as decreased morale, creativity and motivation, lack of trust, increased absenteeism and resentment. In addition to these issues, employees are left feeling an absence of autonomy. All are serious problems for the employee, as well as management, yet to them, it only costs a portion of what it costs the company due to lack of productivity and operations. Research by Deci and Ryan, two leading motivational researchers have found that human beings experience their highest levels of motivation, productivity and happiness when the three universal needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy are met.
Micromanagement can be very intimidating experience. A culture of fear is created by managers when they try control their employee’s actions, and are continuously looking over their employees shoulders. This keen and watchful eye can raise concern with employees, and ensures that employees will “choke under pressure”. Employees under these intense circumstances do not feel as if they can make mistakes or that their work is satisfactory enough. The Journal of Experimental Psychology conducted a survey showing that participants who felt they were being watched performed significantly poorer on the tasks at hand than those who did not feel this way.
There is a little light at the end of the micromanagement tunnel, as there are people who support this management style. Ultimately, managers are responsible for the quality and accuracy of the work that is completed by their staff. By utilizing this micro method it certifies that employees stay on track and work to achieve goals. Paul Gillard, Ph.D., executive business consultant and founder of Transformation Associates Inc., says that “managers should never be afraid to manage… I think in the past two decades, we have lost sight of the strong directive management”.
While managing employees is inevitable and expected, using such a harsh method is unnecessary. This method is a disheartening tactic that utilizes fear and power in order to get employees to perform how management thinks they ought to perform, instead of letting employee’s problem solve on their own. Rachel Radwinsky, Ph.D., states that “it is a manager’s job to help push the work of the team along – instructing, motivating, guiding, directing, prompting, reminding and yes, sometimes even doing the work him/herself. The difference lies in whether all that effort is really adding value to the final output or not”.
Micromanagement creates a toxic work environment because of the demoralizing methods. Instead of focusing on what employees might do wrong, management should consider focusing on what the employees might do right.
Teacher Tenure Should Be Removed
Alexzandra Stanley
According to Teachers Union Exposed, in many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure. Teacher tenure is a policy that grants teachers protection from being fired with a “just cause” reason. The amount of years that it takes for a teacher to receive tenure depends on the state and level of education. The average for high school and below, and for community college is 3 years and for four year universities it is about 4 years. Once teachers have a tenure it is difficult for their employer to fire them, even if they are not a quality teacher. According to Teachers Union Exposed, a study was conducted by the Public Agenda and out of 1,345, 78% said that a few or more teachers fail to do their job and just go through the motions. Teacher tenure should not exist because it is given away with ease and it is protecting teachers that are not quality teachers.
Education should focus on the quality of teaching that is provided for the children rather than job security. According to ProCon, tenure does not promote the education given to the children rather it just benefits the adult. Once a teacher obtains tenure than it is costly and difficult to fire a teacher unless they do something illegal. Teacher tenure is protecting a lot of teachers that are not quality teachers and should be replaced with someone who is just as qualified, if not more, but also with someone who is willing to provide better teaching. According to ProCon, a study that was conducted by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew of a poorly performed tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not pursue dismissal of the teachers because of cost and its time consuming. Schools know that they have non-quality teachers, but they do not fire them because of cost. If tenure was removed, then schools would be able to fire teachers with less hassle than right now with teacher tenure.
Most states only require a teacher to teach for three years before they receive teacher tenure. Three years is not enough time for teachers to show that they are worthy nor does it give even time to demonstrate their future teaching. Teachers that teach from Kindergarten to 12th grade receive teacher tenure even easier as they sometimes receive tenure after less than three years. The Los Angeles Time reported that less than 2% of teachers are denied tenure during their 2-year probation period after being hired in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Tenure was given to most teacher after less than 2 years which is not sufficient time for the school district to know what kind of teacher they are. Teacher tenure is given too early and it is sometimes given to people who do not deserve it.
People believe that teacher tenure attracts future teachers as it will provide them job security. Some individuals are concerned that if tenure is removed that it will prevent people from becoming teachers. According to National Education Association, no more than one-third of all college and university faculty members are tenured. Therefore, teachers are still attracted to the profession even without tenure. They think that tenure is needed to recruit teachers, but there are many professors that do not have tenure and still applied for the job.
Some believe that tenure attracts people to the profession, but according to ProCon, Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. Most teachers become teachers because they want to teach students and provide them quality teaching, therefore, they are not interested in the job because of the tenure. Not to mention there are many unemployed teachers and most would be willing to work even without tenure being offered.
Removing teacher tenure can improve the quality of education that is being provided to students as it will be easier to dismiss a teacher who is not providing adequate teaching. Also, it will be less costly and time consuming for school districts to remove teachers and hire teachers who will teach better. If teacher tenure cannot be removed, then it should at least be revised so that way school districts can remove inadequate teachers from their district. If they can dismiss inadequate teachers, then they can hire better teachers which will result in better education given to the students.
Repudiating RFRA
Topher Stevens
Religious Freedom has become code for freedom to discriminate. Originally, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was designed to protect the use of peyote in a religious ceremony after two Native Americans were fired for failing a drug test. Legislators saw these firings as an injustice and created RFRA in an attempt to protect minority religions from unjust laws. The RFRA laws have now transformed, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case that went in front of the Supreme Court. The court decided that because Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation, its owners can run it using their religious preferences. The Supreme Court opened up RFRA to be used against gays and lesbians on religious grounds. While useful at one point, these laws have been corrupted and are no longer being used to defend religions.
State RFRA laws are now being used to overturn local ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination. These local civil rights victories are being overturned by right wing legislatures at the behest of the same group that railed against gay marriage. LGBT people are a minority that still needs to be protected, as it is common to see discrimination against them. These protections often include bans on employment and housing discrimination. According to the White House Task Force on ending homelessness, “LGBT adults are also vulnerable to homelessness because of a widespread lack of nondiscrimination protections.” State RFRA laws threaten to make this issue even worse. Besides being harmful, RFRA laws are unneeded for protecting religion.
Religious freedom is already protected by our constitution under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, as it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The stated purpose of these laws are already protected, so these laws are either redundant or preferential to a religion. These state RFRA laws violate the 1st Amendment by allowing religious people and organizations to use their religion to mistreat others.
The original Federal RFRA had support from the majority of Democrats in the 1990’s. Proponents of the bill like to point out that there isn’t any discriminatory language in these state RFRA laws that liberals find so problematic. Rick Garnett, who teaches law at the University of Notre Dame, observes that the Indiana RFRA bill “is a moderate measure that tracks a well-established federal law and the laws of several dozen other states. Contrary to what some critics have suggested, it does not give anyone a “license to discriminate,” it would not undermine our important civil-rights commitments, and it would not impose excessive burdens on Indiana’s courts.” Supporters claim that these modern state RFRA laws are about protecting the freedoms of the religious to practice. Despite these arguments in favor, there are problems with this position.
The original and the modern RFRA laws are very different, even though they have very similar language. The original RFRA was meant to protect ceremonies and traditions from small religions that were dying out, but now it is being used to protect evangelical Christians from lawsuits. The irony is that what once protected minorities is now used against them. Christianity seems to be doing fine in America, as a majority of its population define themselves as part of it.
RFRA laws aren’t needed in America. The Religious Right enjoys playing the victim, even when they have all the power. Allowing them to push RFRA through more states would just exacerbate the religious freedom problem, not fix it. RFRA laws need to be stopped.
Cohabitation: A Trial Period Before Marriage
Would you move in with your significant other before marriage? “Cohabitation refers to unmarried heterosexual couples living together in an intimate relationship. Cohabitation as such is not a new phenomenon. Since the 1970s, many countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, have experienced rapid growth in their cohabitation rate.” (Cohabitation). So it isn’t a new concept but maybe one we shouldn’t consider. Most people would think moving in together before marriage will give them a better understanding about one another. They also believe that moving in together before marriage is a good way to avoid divorce. However, many of my friends who cohabited before marriage are actually divorced now and this statistic supports my experience, “More than eight out of ten couples who live together will break up either before the wedding or afterwards in divorce.” (Fowler). I think that couples who cohabit before marriage tend to be less satisfied with their marriages and are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. “Since the 1970’s, study after study found that living together before marriage could undercut a couple’s future happiness and ultimately lead to divorce. On average, researchers concluded that couples who lived together before they tied the knot saw a 33 percent higher rate of divorce than those who waited to live together until after they were married.” (Fox)
Would you still consider moving in before marriage if you knew that the rate of divorce increases? Many argue that it would decrease because you learn what it is like to live with each other before tying the knot. “Only 12 percent of couples who have begun their relationship with cohabitation end up with a marriage lasting 10 years or more.” (Fowler). But studies show that couples are less satisfied in their marriage. “Many cohabitates simply lose the excitement of being married. The inertia, personal choice or afraid to commit keep people from tying the knot and living together is simply easier. This is in particular to those who are afraid to make the commitment to marriage and the ones who become most likely to divorce in the long run. It is especially frustrating if one person in the relationship wants to move to marriage and the other doesn’t. The commitment phobes prefer to “play house” rather than get married. They like the conveniences that living together provides but aren’t convinced this is the person they want to marry and use the inertia momentum to their advantage.” (NLCATP.org).
Another reason not to cohabitate before marriage is it increases the chance of an unplanned pregnancy. Having a baby is a decision that shouldn’t be made lightly, it comes with a lot of responsibilities and you are forever in each other’s lives. “The number of births overall to cohabiting women increased from 14% of all births in 2002 to 23% in 2006-10,” according to the First Federal Report on Intended and Unintended births since 1990. That is a huge amount of births for couple who aren’t married but cohabitate. It can also force couples who aren’t committed, either one partner or both, into marriage, and create more stress for those who aren’t committed.
Cohabitating before marriage does give the chance to learn the other person’s routine, get to know each other better by spending more time with them, and have a better understanding of each other. “In turn cohabitating allows each to learn the habits of the other. Each partner will learn who is a morning person and who is not and develop strategies to work together to respect each other’s habits.” (NLCATP.org).
However, it tends to cause more problems than solving. Many cohabitates feel as if they are spending too much time together and instead of learning how to handle those “annoying” behaviors, it causes more problems. “The converse of the pro of wanting to spend more time together is that couples find living together gives them too much time together. One or both of the cohabitates feel smothered by the other and mourn the loss of their freedom to go and do what they wanted prior to cohabitation,” (Cohabitation).
In conclusion, waiting to live together in the long run, gives the marriage a better chance at succeeding as the statistics have shown. “The science is beginning to show that peeking behind the curtain before choosing to settle into a lifetime of marriage isn’t in and of itself a mistake, but there are still risk factors. It might be important today for all of us to know whether our partner handles the dirty dishes, but cohabitation can still be a mess for those who don’t proceed with caution.”
Testing the Waters
Falling in love is one of the best feelings on earth. The want to be with them at all hours of the day is so great that one will spend all of their waking hours with them. Moving in with each other is a huge step in the relationship especially if it is before marriage. The editorial Cohabitation: A Trial Before Marriage believes that couples who cohabit before marriage tend to be less satisfied with their marriages and are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. That is not always the case. Living with your significant other before marriage is a good idea because it is basically dipping your toe in the water before you tie the knot and jump into the pool of marriage and being with them “til death do us part.” You will understand who they are as a person and it will help you know if they are the right person for you in the long run. Cohabitating before marriage with your significant other is very beneficial and helps the relationship become successful.
The essay Cohabitation: A Trial Before Marriage, states “Cohabitating before marriage does give the chance to learn the other person’s routine, get to know each other better by spending more time with them, and have a better understanding of each other. However, it tends to cause more problems than solving. Many cohabitates feel as if they are spending too much time together and instead of learning how to handle those “annoying” behaviors, it causes more problems.” This would not be the case because any healthy relationship can get through the problems and come up with a solution to the problem. Spending 24/7 with your significant other you will learn how they live their everyday life and if it does causes problems then they can be fixed before marriage. Understanding who the other person is to a further extent will help them know if they are the right person for you in the long run.
Marriage is more than likely in the future for cohabitating couples. Living together before marriage also means the couple can get to start their life together without having to officially getting married. According to foryourmarriage.org “60% of all marriages are preceded from cphabitation.” Getting spend time with them all day every day and starting life with each other is a fun part of the relationship. They get to do in home activities, like painting the kitchen and other housework to make it “our” home. Being able to have date night in the comfort of the home and being able to just fall asleep in each other’s arms makes for great nights. Weddings are a long process so why should life have to wait for that?
On the contrary, the editorial being refuted states that there is a higher risk of having an unplanned child before marriage. Sleeping together every night can lead to having sex more often which if careless can lead to an unplanned pregnancy. According to First Federal Report on Intended and Unintended births, “The number of births overall to cohabiting women increased from 14% of all births in 2002 to 23% in 2006-10,” Having a baby before marriage can be very stressful in many different ways that can hurt the relationship. If one person is not ready for marriage and they have a baby with their significant other, then they could jump into something that they will hate and end up have a disaster later on in life. Having a baby can add a lot of strain financially on the newly developing family which can make life very hard and lead to breakups.
Being in a committed relationship with the person you love is amazing. Living with them is just a small step towards the rest of your life with them. Cohabitating can help you work any potential problems out with your significant other, and it can help you learn further about who they are too. Living together can also help you realise that if the relationship is not right and you can not handle living with the other person then the marriage would not have been successful anyways. Cohabitating is a good idea before marriage, it is a trial run before you make one of the biggest decisions of your life, and that is very important to have a successful marriage.
Year Round Schooling
By: Corrina Blake
Imagine going to a school for a year and being able to accomplish and remember more of what you learned. Would you attend this school? Year round school, the school year goes all year round with week vacations throughout the year instead of a three month summer vacation. Students attend the same amount of days and hours as a school that attend for nine months with a summer vacation. Year round schooling runs on a 180 day calendar but with a different schedule. According to Sindhu Nair, generally, “year-round schools will continue to operate on an 180-day system, but those days will be spread out differently with shorter breaks between each term.” Year round schooling has been proven to help students with their learning abilities without the long summer vacation. More districts are leaning towards year round schooling because of the positive effects.
Many districts are looking into switching to a year round schedule for their schools. They believe it will greatly benefit their students. There are about 3,000 year round schools in the United States. Most of them are in California and New York. Jaclyn Zubrzycki said, The Los Angeles School District, participated in year-round schooling as the city’s population increased in the 1980s and still has schools on a year-round schedule by 2015.
Students who attend year round schooling benefit because it improves their academics. Instead of taking a three month summer vacation, year round schools take various week long vacations during the year. Students still get a Christmas vacation and holidays off. The three month summer vacation is split into mini vacations through out the year. By decreasing summer vacation students will not lose as much of the information they have learned over the course of the year. Tracy A. Huebner, Senior Research Associate at WestEd, said, “Students in year-round schools do as well or slightly better in terms of academic achievement than students in traditional schools.”
When students come back from summer vacation in the fall, many teachers have to spend time reviewing because students have lost what they have learned during the summer. Year around schooling helps students be able to retain more throughout the year. Teachers spend more time focusing on what material they need to teach for the year and not what the children learned last year. California Department of Education explains that, there is a loss of retention of information that happens during summer vacation and year round schooling minimizes the loss by the shorter, more frequent vacations that characterize year-round calendars.
The biggest down side is that students will not spend the “quality family time” that children get with a three month long summer vacation. Some students really look forward to summer vacation and not having this vacation may really affect them. If a family has more then one child at multiple schools one has a traditional schedule and the other year round, this would be hard to plan a vacation around. Family time means a lot to students and their parents. Sindhu Nair says, Families with children in different schools and different schedules might have a tough time being able to plan day care or family vacations. The year round school scheduled could impact families and their time together.
Even though students do not get three whole months to spend with their family, in year round schools there are weeks during summer that students have off. During these weeks they can spend with their families similar to a mini summer vacation. With year round schooling, families will still be able to take summer vacations. Year round schooling is set up so students attend school for 45-15 time. Which means they attend 45 days then get 15 days off, then 30-3, 15-15, 45-15 and 45-30. With the time the students have off, families will be able to plan out a family vacation. Year round schooling can work for everyone.
Schools should be year round because students will improve academics and teachers spend less time reviewing. Year round schooling is only going to continue to grow through out districts. It has such a positive effect on students and still allows them to have time off without forgetting anything they have learned. Year round schooling is perfect for every school based on the scheduling it works for everyone.
The Problem with Year-Round Schooling
By: Morgan Blake
Many schools across the country are changing to become year-round schools, but this might not be such a good thing. Traditional schools have 3 months off in the summer. This is compared to year-round schools, which have 3 separate, shorter breaks spread throughout the year. Originally it was imperative that children had the summers off in order to help work on the family farm. Now that is no longer essential, but it does not mean that it should change. Year-round schooling is not the answer to improving academic achievement.
Students who go to a year-round school will not spend the “quality family time” that children get with a three month long summer vacation. According to Dr. Matthew Lynch, Assistant Professor of Education at Widener University, “Year-round schools can also prove to be disruptive to family life when children in the same household attend different schools. Families could end up in a situation where one child is on a lengthy vacation while another is required to attend school.” Families that are very close may have a hard time adjusting to this change. Especially if they have older children who may be responsible for watching their younger siblings while their parents are at work.
Also, there is no guarantee of improved academic achievement from year-round schooling. There is actually a decline in reading, math, and language scores. “Despite heated debates over year-round schooling and its rapid adoption across the country, we find little evidence that a year-round calendar will benefit the average student.” stated Stephen McMullen, Assistant Professor of Economics at Hope College. School should be all about the students, helping them learn and preparing them for the real world. If year-round schools are not effective in this, school districts should not switch over to them. Jennifer Graves, Professor of Economics at University of California, Irving stated, “Using detailed longitudinal data for public schools in California, I find that being on a multi-track year-round calendar results in a drop of 1–2 percentile points in national percentile rank on reading, math and language scores.” This is scary. Not only are year-round schools not improving test scores, they are actually making the children’s test scores worse. This is completely the opposite of what schools should be doing.
Year-round schooling allows for less reviewing time after the shorter breaks. The students remember more from before the break because it is not as long as the traditional summer break. Lessons are fresher in children’s minds. According to the pilot study by the Peel District School Board, students remember significantly more information after the shorter breaks, which allows the teachers to be able to begin teaching new material without spending weeks reviewing previous lessons.
Although year-round schooling allows for less reviewing time, there are still many negatives to switching to year-round schools. Students who attend year-round schools are missing out on family time by having siblings on different break schedules and there has actually been shown to be a decrease in reading, math, and language test scores. School districts should carefully consider the negative effects before switching to year-round schools.