People love watching sporting events. It brings people together cheering for their team. Football has been one of the favorite sporting events to attend. Football has been known as a "man's game" and hard hitting, which is what the fans want to see. The only problem is that in the past few weeks the NFL has tried to take out the big hits of the game. To be exact the NFL wants to do away with helmet to helmet contact. The new research done around the league regarding head injuries and concussions links to helmet to helmet contact. I can understand why the NFL wants to change this way of tackeling, but it is a part of the game. Big hits happen and as fans that is exactly what we all want to see. The league has started to fine players now for helmet to helmet contact. Two weeks ago the middle linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, James Harrison, got fined $75,000 for two helmet to helmet hits that happened in his last game. This is a lot of money to be fined for doing your job, which for James Harrison is to tackel the other team.
The league has its concerns for the safety of the players and I understand that, but every NFL player knows the dangers of the game before stepping on the field. Football is a contact sport and taking big hits out of the game will take awhile. Big hits have been apart of football for years, I can remember growing up playing football in grade school. Our coaches would tell us that when you tackle some one, that you want to hit them hard and hurt them. Well now everything that has been taught to kids is being lost in the game. James Harrison actually told his head coach that he is going to retire from the NFL because "I was playing the game the way I have always been taught how, I can't play any other way."
There is were the problem lies, coaching, if coaches teach the proper technique to tackling then these injuries will be less severe. Big hits in football are going to happen there is no way to stop it. When two big fast athletes are running full speed at eachother they only have a fraction of a second to make up their mind. How can we exspect these men flying around the field to not hit helmet to helmet. Big hits are part of football taking it out of the game is like taking fighting out of hockey or tobacco out of baseball, which they are trying to do.
Kemer Quirk
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Old School Must Give Way
As we as a people move forward technological advancements will continue to occur, more in-depth research studies will be done to better understand our world, and ideas and theories that led the past will fall aside to new truths. This has always been true and now more than ever with the NFL changing to be less violent. But one thing that needs to catch up is thoughts on bullying and the mentality of people.
Old school thought would tell you that bullying is just a part of life that everyone must go through it, it makes you stronger as a person. And I being someone who once shared these beliefs and now am trying to change can not argue against those thoughts. Bullying has and probably will always be a part of the human experience and I am stronger for what I dealt with. But while that may be true it shouldn’t be the way we see things or accept things to be. For every person that shrugs of what someone says to them as if it was nothing another person is hit by it and takes it to heart. And that person more so now than ever may not be able to deal with it and fall into depression or do something drastic to end their pain or fear. Bullies have always been good at using what advantage they have over people to hurt them and now with the internet we are finding that the advantage of facebook and myspace that bullies are using can be devastating. Facebook has become as much a part of people lives as the actual interaction that they have with people and to some more important because it allows for them to be away from bullies at school and talk with their friends. But ow for some it has become a place for bullies to ridicule and make fun of more so than when a adult at school maybe around. Youtube has become a place to air embarrassment for someone for the world to see. Kids now post fights on the internet as much as they post funny clips. Last year the video of the seven girls who beat on one girl for dating one of their ex made headlines this year the video that brought abot suicide by a gay student at Rutgers is making headlines. Infact, four more gay teens killed themselves that week for being made fun of. All of these things stated are things you can not argue against. But that doesn’t mean we should accept them.
We need to put restrictions or avenues in place to protect people on the internet like we at least try with no tolerance laws in school. And stop telling kids to suck it up or be a man, because what if this kid can’t suck it up and does something drastic it would be because we as a society just didn’t care enough to help.
Andrew Boyce
Friday, October 22, 2010
Abortion: Why it should be made illegal in the U.S.
Over 49.5 million people in the United States have been killed through abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue; some people think it is wrong, others see no problem in it. Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception, in other words it is the ending of a pregnancy. Although it is a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, it is killing an undeveloped embryo or fetus and that is where the controversy comes into play.
There are two sides to the issue. Supporters of abortion believe that the embryo or fetus is not a living person; therefore the government has no right to take away the option of abortion. “Pro-Choice “ believe that the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and she can do whatever she wants to it. Many supporters of abortion also use the argument of rape. The fact is, less than 3% of women get an abortion after a rape in the U.S. From the words of a woman who is the product of a rape, “my life is not worth any less than yours because of the crime of my father.”
People who oppose abortion believe that the embryo or fetus is a living person that has the right to have his/her life protected by the government. “Pro-life” believes in a voice for the unborn. These supporters will argue that the fetus is a living person; life starts at conception. Although this cannot be proved, there are other facts that attribute to this thought. The minute conception happens, all human chromosomes are present and unique. A fetus has its own personal DNA, not its mother’s. The heart will begin to beat just 22 days after conception, about 3 weeks. At 6 weeks, the fetus is a barely the size of a kidney bean yet brain waves are still being recorded and reflexes are becoming present. All of the parts necessary to feel pain are formed by week 12, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.
Post abortion complications can be an issue for women, many of them not realizing all of the risks involved. Physical problems resulting from the procedure can include hemorrhage, infection, sterility, cervical and ovarian cancer, and even death. The procedure itself can be extremely painful. Aside from the physical side affects, there are also psychological consequences from having an abortion. Depression, sleep disturbance, and mental trauma may occur a few hours after the procedure, or even years.
The bottom line is that pregnancy is 100% preventable. Teenagers receive 19% of abortions in the U.S, and over 52% of the women who obtain abortions are under the age of 25. Abstinence is not forced upon anyone, but contraceptives still greatly reduced the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion should be illegal not only because it is potentially harmful to the mother’s health and taking the life away from a human that has no voice, but can be prevented through responsible actions that people should be doing in the first place.
By: Katherine Anne Gibson
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html
An issue that has been on my mind for the past few weeks is that of government control. I would not consider myself anti-government, extremist, or even radically political; however, something about the federal government investing millions, if not billions of dollars into regulating aspects of our lives that they should have no say in makes me really uncomfortable.
Recently I have seen a number of documentaries that have really sparked my discomfort with government control. Issues such as illegal steroid use, marijuana use, and even seat belt regulations have struck a chord with me. My point is not that steroids are the way to enhance your strength, going throughout your day spaced out is ok, and even seat belts do not save lives. My point is that these are all issues of personal choice that do not directly put society around us in danger. For instance, I watched a documentary called "Bigger, Faster, Stronger: the story of America" and the basis of this documentary was where is all the research and evidence that anabolic steroids actually do what the media and 'social fear' tells us it does? After months of research, interviews, and experimenting the host discovered that long-term studies have never been done on anabolic steroids, no such official documentation exists to support things such as cancer, insanity, and heart disease. So the question is are they illegal because of fact or because of fear, hype, myth, etc? I say all this to say that the Congress spent more days in session and more money investigating steroids in major league baseball than they did deciding whether or not we should go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's. Whether or not studies come to show the harm anabolic steroids does to one's body, my question is should the government be allowed to tell you what to do with your own body when it affects only yourself?
Another topic that interests me is that amount of money spent on marijuana use in the United States. Personally I am not a smoker, it's never done much for me, but where is the facts and research of the harm it does to users? Cigarette studies could probably fill the University library with facts of what cigarettes do to our bodies and the bodies of others, yet I have never been convinced of specific facts to the long term harm of marijuana to the user and those around them and look which of the two products are illegal. I believe this is just another example of the government controlling that which they fear. A documentary I watched called "Drug Wars" gave the statistic that in Amsterdam, an area known for its lax marijuana regulation, drug use beyond marijuana such as cocaine, heroin, etc. is almost 65% less than that of other first world countries such as the U.S. and Britain. So why does our government spend billions of dollars to imprison marijuana related offenders, track marijuana trade, and other anti-marijuana related activities?
Lastly, I know this is an extremely controversial point, but the whole seat belt thing kinda makes me uncomfortable. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and we all 'should' wear them, but still isn't wearing a seat belt a choice we should make as a free thinking individual and not out of fear of our government? I realize all three of my issues are extremely debatable and I encourage feedback. I'm just trying to relate the question and concepts that have been going through my head the past few week. Perhaps we should all take a deeper look into what the law says we cannot do and the basis for that law; I bet in many cases we would all be shocked to see the lack of basis for many laws.
Jeff C.
Recently I have seen a number of documentaries that have really sparked my discomfort with government control. Issues such as illegal steroid use, marijuana use, and even seat belt regulations have struck a chord with me. My point is not that steroids are the way to enhance your strength, going throughout your day spaced out is ok, and even seat belts do not save lives. My point is that these are all issues of personal choice that do not directly put society around us in danger. For instance, I watched a documentary called "Bigger, Faster, Stronger: the story of America" and the basis of this documentary was where is all the research and evidence that anabolic steroids actually do what the media and 'social fear' tells us it does? After months of research, interviews, and experimenting the host discovered that long-term studies have never been done on anabolic steroids, no such official documentation exists to support things such as cancer, insanity, and heart disease. So the question is are they illegal because of fact or because of fear, hype, myth, etc? I say all this to say that the Congress spent more days in session and more money investigating steroids in major league baseball than they did deciding whether or not we should go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's. Whether or not studies come to show the harm anabolic steroids does to one's body, my question is should the government be allowed to tell you what to do with your own body when it affects only yourself?
Another topic that interests me is that amount of money spent on marijuana use in the United States. Personally I am not a smoker, it's never done much for me, but where is the facts and research of the harm it does to users? Cigarette studies could probably fill the University library with facts of what cigarettes do to our bodies and the bodies of others, yet I have never been convinced of specific facts to the long term harm of marijuana to the user and those around them and look which of the two products are illegal. I believe this is just another example of the government controlling that which they fear. A documentary I watched called "Drug Wars" gave the statistic that in Amsterdam, an area known for its lax marijuana regulation, drug use beyond marijuana such as cocaine, heroin, etc. is almost 65% less than that of other first world countries such as the U.S. and Britain. So why does our government spend billions of dollars to imprison marijuana related offenders, track marijuana trade, and other anti-marijuana related activities?
Lastly, I know this is an extremely controversial point, but the whole seat belt thing kinda makes me uncomfortable. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and we all 'should' wear them, but still isn't wearing a seat belt a choice we should make as a free thinking individual and not out of fear of our government? I realize all three of my issues are extremely debatable and I encourage feedback. I'm just trying to relate the question and concepts that have been going through my head the past few week. Perhaps we should all take a deeper look into what the law says we cannot do and the basis for that law; I bet in many cases we would all be shocked to see the lack of basis for many laws.
Jeff C.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
True Beauty: Are Pageants Helpful?
Beauty pageants. Yes, we have all seen them, heard of them, or read of them at some point or another. Hundreds of females—and even some males—of all ages compete in them every year. But what are these contests doing to help their contestants?
Before I begin, let me state that I have participated in a couple of school pageants in the past, and quite enjoyed getting all “dolled up” to do so. I have many friends that have done and still take part in pageants all over the state and they do quite well in them. Many do not have to pay for their college education because of the numerous scholarships they have won throughout the years. These girls worked hard at succeeding, just like most students do when applying for a scholarship. The pageants these friends of mine partake in require “beauty,” but more importantly, they are heavily judged on charisma, talent, strong leadership ability, and a charitable platform. These girls not only represent their platform on pageant night, but throughout the year, raising awareness and doing various fundraisers for their particular charity. Several girls I know that are involved in pageants are pursuing degrees in nursing or business, or going on to pursue a Ph.D. in their field. What I am saying is most pageant girls are not the stereotypical Barbie-Doll-pageant-girl. They have brains and, for many of them, pageants give them confidence to use their brains, plus a chance to win a crown in the process.
Now, the beauty “pageants” I described above do not pose as big of a threat to women around the world as the beauty “contests”. These “contests” present a harmful image to impressionable young girls. Instead of requiring a particular talent or platform from their participants, and in some cases, money and/or a modeling contract, based solely off of how they look in a swimsuit and evening gown. Take Miss America versus Miss USA, for example. Miss America is a pageant that encourages the continuing education of its contestants. Miss America’s website reads, “Developed by the Miss America Organization, the Miss America program exists to provide personal and professional opportunities for young women to promote their voices in culture, politics and the community… The Miss America Organization is the leading provider of scholarships for young women in the world.” However, the Miss USA pageant does not. According to the Official Miss Universe website, “In 1902 Catalina Swimsuits founded Miss USA and Miss Universe in Long Beach, California as a product promotion.” A product promotion of swimsuits still exists in this day and age? This era when women are both CEOs and housewives? What if we changed our perception of beauty like women before fought to change the perception of what a woman can, can’t, or should do?
According to the Love Your Body Foundation, a pageant for women of all ages, sizes, and ethnicities, beauty contests “…uphold certain beauty standards that are dangerous and offensive, they pit women against each other as enemies competing to achieve impossible perfection and win male approval.” The message many of these contests are sending to our youth is, “That’s okay. You don’t really need a brain. You just need to be a size two and people will think you’re beautiful.” America claims to be changing, becoming more accepting and diverse. If so, why don’t we change this ancient view of what beauty is? America needs a renovation of the beauty contests, if not the termination of them altogether. Let’s redefine beauty in women as intelligence, perseverance, confidence, and optimism…which may still include “world peace”.
Anna Laura Parten
Before I begin, let me state that I have participated in a couple of school pageants in the past, and quite enjoyed getting all “dolled up” to do so. I have many friends that have done and still take part in pageants all over the state and they do quite well in them. Many do not have to pay for their college education because of the numerous scholarships they have won throughout the years. These girls worked hard at succeeding, just like most students do when applying for a scholarship. The pageants these friends of mine partake in require “beauty,” but more importantly, they are heavily judged on charisma, talent, strong leadership ability, and a charitable platform. These girls not only represent their platform on pageant night, but throughout the year, raising awareness and doing various fundraisers for their particular charity. Several girls I know that are involved in pageants are pursuing degrees in nursing or business, or going on to pursue a Ph.D. in their field. What I am saying is most pageant girls are not the stereotypical Barbie-Doll-pageant-girl. They have brains and, for many of them, pageants give them confidence to use their brains, plus a chance to win a crown in the process.
Now, the beauty “pageants” I described above do not pose as big of a threat to women around the world as the beauty “contests”. These “contests” present a harmful image to impressionable young girls. Instead of requiring a particular talent or platform from their participants, and in some cases, money and/or a modeling contract, based solely off of how they look in a swimsuit and evening gown. Take Miss America versus Miss USA, for example. Miss America is a pageant that encourages the continuing education of its contestants. Miss America’s website reads, “Developed by the Miss America Organization, the Miss America program exists to provide personal and professional opportunities for young women to promote their voices in culture, politics and the community… The Miss America Organization is the leading provider of scholarships for young women in the world.” However, the Miss USA pageant does not. According to the Official Miss Universe website, “In 1902 Catalina Swimsuits founded Miss USA and Miss Universe in Long Beach, California as a product promotion.” A product promotion of swimsuits still exists in this day and age? This era when women are both CEOs and housewives? What if we changed our perception of beauty like women before fought to change the perception of what a woman can, can’t, or should do?
According to the Love Your Body Foundation, a pageant for women of all ages, sizes, and ethnicities, beauty contests “…uphold certain beauty standards that are dangerous and offensive, they pit women against each other as enemies competing to achieve impossible perfection and win male approval.” The message many of these contests are sending to our youth is, “That’s okay. You don’t really need a brain. You just need to be a size two and people will think you’re beautiful.” America claims to be changing, becoming more accepting and diverse. If so, why don’t we change this ancient view of what beauty is? America needs a renovation of the beauty contests, if not the termination of them altogether. Let’s redefine beauty in women as intelligence, perseverance, confidence, and optimism…which may still include “world peace”.
Anna Laura Parten
Do Not Resuscitate Orders on Medical Records
According to U.S. Legal Definitions, a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate Order) is "an advanced directive that is to be followed when a person's heart or breathing stops and they are unable to communicate their wishes to refuse treatment that could allow them to die." Basically this means that a competent adult or their advocate can issue an order in their medical records that if they stop breathing or their heart stops they are not to be resuscitated through the use of CPR or a difibrulator. As of late, it has become common practice to add a DNR to medical records, especially in the case of the terminally ill or the elderly. It is my belief that instituting DNR orders is a sound medical practice and a wise measure to take for those who are older or terminally ill.
Having a DNR order on the medical records belonging to you or a loved one is a great idea. It definitely helps to reduce stress during the time of a hospital visit. Rather than having to decide on the spot whether or not to resuscitate your loved one, the decision has already been placed by them and you have stronger peace of mind in a stressful situation. Many times, initiating "advanced measures" to save someone (ie CPR) actually reduces their quality of life and causes them to live in a vegetative state. Moreover, most terminally ill patients choose to institute DNRs because they have already been through so much and have decided to accept their fate. People may argue about the morality of this issue, however many religions actually support DNRs because of this. The DNR is an order only against resuscitation, so it is not the highly controversial "assisted suicide." The patient is not killing themselves, rather they are accepting fate and choosing to not be saved at the risk of a less satisfying existence. They are not initiating their death; rather they are refusing to be saved. Many times the use of CPR or a difibrulator can actually harm the patient, causing cracked ribs among other injuries.
The bottom line is that initiating these orders can help you carry out yours or your loved one's wishes if the need arises. We never know when the unexpected will happen in life, and it saves much time and stress to be as prepared as you can possibly be for the time. Whether or not to initiate a DNR is a personal choice; one that should be made before making it to the hospital bed. Having this decision made will certainly give you room to breathe.
Beki Martin
Having a DNR order on the medical records belonging to you or a loved one is a great idea. It definitely helps to reduce stress during the time of a hospital visit. Rather than having to decide on the spot whether or not to resuscitate your loved one, the decision has already been placed by them and you have stronger peace of mind in a stressful situation. Many times, initiating "advanced measures" to save someone (ie CPR) actually reduces their quality of life and causes them to live in a vegetative state. Moreover, most terminally ill patients choose to institute DNRs because they have already been through so much and have decided to accept their fate. People may argue about the morality of this issue, however many religions actually support DNRs because of this. The DNR is an order only against resuscitation, so it is not the highly controversial "assisted suicide." The patient is not killing themselves, rather they are accepting fate and choosing to not be saved at the risk of a less satisfying existence. They are not initiating their death; rather they are refusing to be saved. Many times the use of CPR or a difibrulator can actually harm the patient, causing cracked ribs among other injuries.
The bottom line is that initiating these orders can help you carry out yours or your loved one's wishes if the need arises. We never know when the unexpected will happen in life, and it saves much time and stress to be as prepared as you can possibly be for the time. Whether or not to initiate a DNR is a personal choice; one that should be made before making it to the hospital bed. Having this decision made will certainly give you room to breathe.
Beki Martin
Monday, October 18, 2010
Global Warming
Many people today question the myth of Global warming. Often because they feel it does not affect them, plus who cares if it’s a little warmer. Well it is not a myth and it will affect us eventually. Granted the effects of global warming may not necessarily cause the world to end and the economy to crash in your life time, but it will in no doubt affect us and eventually cripple our economy if measures are not taken to prevent this.
The United States of America vs. Kenya is up first. The United States consumes on an annual basses of 7794.8 killogrammes of oil equivilant per capita, Kenya consumes 481.2 kgoe. annually. Why is this happening the easiest answer Kenya’s main source of energy come from hydroelectric stations located along the Tana River, and the Turkwell George Damn. The United States Primary source of energy comes from 40% petroleum, 23% from coal, and 22% natural gas. That’s enough information to show United States is doing in conserving our natural resources and how depleting those resources can hurt our economy. Another way is to look at the main source of income for the two. Kenya’s main source of income comes from tourism, 63% of their GDP ruled by showing people their culture and homes. The United States’ has a Capitalist Mixed economy driven by the mass production of their natural resources. What does this mean for the future of America that is burning up their natural resources so fast they can’t blink? The United States will have to change, or endure a long hard fall to the bottom.
North Korea is a Country that has already taken that last step in 1990 in the “Arduous March” killed 300,000 to 800,000 per year due to famine and mal nutrition. The major cause for the famine is the breakup of allied communist states, as well as economic and resources mismanagement. By 2006 North Korea made its way back to only 37% of their children being chronically malnourished. In Korea’s defense they only consume 894.1 kgoe annually, compared to Singapore 5158.7 kgoe annually. The reasoning for that Korea consumes less is because Korea has already felt the shock of losing their resources and trying to recover, where as Singapore is still a growing country that has not
All of the technology and all of the money in the world will not change a thing if we do not change people. The United States is one of the worst in the consumption of natural resources. The American dream has grown from a white picket fence, family, in a safe neighborhood to keeping up with the Jones’. The problem will continue until you can get the people to stop excessive use of natural resources. It does no good for my grandma to boil her curlers to save money, while an actor spends his day cruising around in his private helicopter or yacht. The change that needs to be made is with people. We as people created our economies to survive off mass production and buying in quantities, but the time has come for us to adapt once again and save ourselves from our own monster.
Brock Davidson
The United States of America vs. Kenya is up first. The United States consumes on an annual basses of 7794.8 killogrammes of oil equivilant per capita, Kenya consumes 481.2 kgoe. annually. Why is this happening the easiest answer Kenya’s main source of energy come from hydroelectric stations located along the Tana River, and the Turkwell George Damn. The United States Primary source of energy comes from 40% petroleum, 23% from coal, and 22% natural gas. That’s enough information to show United States is doing in conserving our natural resources and how depleting those resources can hurt our economy. Another way is to look at the main source of income for the two. Kenya’s main source of income comes from tourism, 63% of their GDP ruled by showing people their culture and homes. The United States’ has a Capitalist Mixed economy driven by the mass production of their natural resources. What does this mean for the future of America that is burning up their natural resources so fast they can’t blink? The United States will have to change, or endure a long hard fall to the bottom.
North Korea is a Country that has already taken that last step in 1990 in the “Arduous March” killed 300,000 to 800,000 per year due to famine and mal nutrition. The major cause for the famine is the breakup of allied communist states, as well as economic and resources mismanagement. By 2006 North Korea made its way back to only 37% of their children being chronically malnourished. In Korea’s defense they only consume 894.1 kgoe annually, compared to Singapore 5158.7 kgoe annually. The reasoning for that Korea consumes less is because Korea has already felt the shock of losing their resources and trying to recover, where as Singapore is still a growing country that has not
All of the technology and all of the money in the world will not change a thing if we do not change people. The United States is one of the worst in the consumption of natural resources. The American dream has grown from a white picket fence, family, in a safe neighborhood to keeping up with the Jones’. The problem will continue until you can get the people to stop excessive use of natural resources. It does no good for my grandma to boil her curlers to save money, while an actor spends his day cruising around in his private helicopter or yacht. The change that needs to be made is with people. We as people created our economies to survive off mass production and buying in quantities, but the time has come for us to adapt once again and save ourselves from our own monster.
Brock Davidson
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Fire Wade Phillips
Superbowl XLV will be played on February 6th, 2011 in Dallas, Texas.
Coming into this regular season, the Dallas Cowboys we're hyped as the "first team to have home field advantage in the Superbowl." The previous year the Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones opened the Taj Mahal of football stadiums. Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
Most likely as of now if Cowboys' players want to attend their own stadium in early February of next year they'll have to have what the rest of us will-a ticket.
After 5 regular season games, the Cowboys' record is an abysmal 1-4. According to ESPN’s NFL Live in the history of the NFL only 5 teams have made the playoffs after such a start. It’s not only that the Cowboys are losing- it’s the way they’re losing.
With final scores of 13-7, 27-20, 34-27, and 24-21 all ending in losses for the Cowboys, at a first glance of the scores it would seem the Cowboys are merely a good team who have simply suffered tough, close losses. However, a look deeper into how their defeats unfolded shows a mistake-prone, and unprepared team. The qualities of a poorly coached team.
So poorly coached in fact, Dallas is tied with Detroit for the most average penalties per game in the NFl with an average of 9.8. The last three weeks that average has been 10.3 (Provided by http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/penalties-per-game) Wade Phillips’ relaxed, quiet, players coach mentality is not the fit this talented team needs. In recent years, the most successful coach for the high profile, high maintenance Cowboys was Jimmie Johnson. He ran the organization with an iron fist and always assured discipline was kept and the team concept was upheld.
Wade has not.
Although, Dallas has never fired a coach mid season before, I think the time has run out on Wade Phillips.
Wade Phillips must be fired.
With each increasing tally in the “L” column the fanbase will certainly call for Wade’s job. With each passing week the coaching situation could become a circus, with weekly distractions.
With the superbowl in his own backyard the pressure is on Jerry Jones to produce a winner.
Now.
This is a talented team with a nucleus of young players who can win now. It just needs a winning coach.
I recommend Jerry Jones pursue candidates of the likes of John Gruden, Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin. The type of coach that knows hes in control of his team. A coach that can handle the pressure of the NFL’s most profitable team. A coach that can handle the pressure of coaching in a building that has been compared to the death-star. A coach that will prepare the team for the task at hand. A coach that will win.
-Daniel Pointer
Friday, October 15, 2010
Parking Issues at the University of Arkansas
The fall 2010 semester at the University of Arkansas has brought with it numerous parking issues. First of the all with the record number of students there is a lack of parking on campus, more importantly the 3800 freshman can be directly connected to the concern. Second, the Razorback Transit busses have experienced an increased number of riders which has contributed to the need for more busses.
This semester we have had record enrollment at the University of Arkansas with approximately 21,000 students on campus. This has led to some issues with a lack of parking. There are simply not enough parking spaces for everyone on campus. There are many options for student parking as there are several lots students may park in if they have a student permit. Lots 56, 44 (“The Pit”) are just a few lots that provide parking for students who commute or want the cheapest parking on campus. For example, lot 56 is the one of the largest student parking lots on campus. However, the University of Arkansas marching band takes up a large amount of space in this particular parking lot during the fall semester. Don’t get me wrong I know several students within the band and love to cheer for them every Saturday, but I believe there could be an alternative practice area for them. As a band member in high school I know that practice is important so I understand their need for the spot but a big section of lot 56 is designated just for the band. If the band were to practice somewhere else this would free up more parking for green passes. The band has so many other places where they could practice i.e. the practice field the football team uses, Razorback Stadium, or possibly even Fayetteville High School. If they were to practice somewhere else and open up that part of the parking lot for students it would help tremendously with the parking issues. Why did I buy a green student pass for parking but yet I have to go to the Union to park because I cannot find a space?
Another concern this semester has been overcrowding on the Razorback Transit busses. This is a source of transportation for many students and residents of Fayetteville, including myself. With the increased number of students there have simply not been enough busses to hold them all. They have been so crowded that people are standing in two rows down the aisle. People will often be so close to you that their backpack will hit you in the face. The green buses along with the blue bus are probably two of the most crowded ones. At the end of August the green bus had a total of 27,197 students that month who rode the green bus alone. The total number of students who rode the bus the month of August was 108,797. In August 2009 a total of 86,286 students rode the bus that month. Compared to this time last year we have already experienced an increase of 22,511 students riding the bus. And these numbers will likely continue as the university grows. A simple solution to this problem would be to just add more busses to the routes. We are a fortunate university that allows us to bring our cars to campus and even though we complain about the prices of parking compared to some schools it’s still cheaper.
This semester we have had record enrollment at the University of Arkansas with approximately 21,000 students on campus. This has led to some issues with a lack of parking. There are simply not enough parking spaces for everyone on campus. There are many options for student parking as there are several lots students may park in if they have a student permit. Lots 56, 44 (“The Pit”) are just a few lots that provide parking for students who commute or want the cheapest parking on campus. For example, lot 56 is the one of the largest student parking lots on campus. However, the University of Arkansas marching band takes up a large amount of space in this particular parking lot during the fall semester. Don’t get me wrong I know several students within the band and love to cheer for them every Saturday, but I believe there could be an alternative practice area for them. As a band member in high school I know that practice is important so I understand their need for the spot but a big section of lot 56 is designated just for the band. If the band were to practice somewhere else this would free up more parking for green passes. The band has so many other places where they could practice i.e. the practice field the football team uses, Razorback Stadium, or possibly even Fayetteville High School. If they were to practice somewhere else and open up that part of the parking lot for students it would help tremendously with the parking issues. Why did I buy a green student pass for parking but yet I have to go to the Union to park because I cannot find a space?
Another concern this semester has been overcrowding on the Razorback Transit busses. This is a source of transportation for many students and residents of Fayetteville, including myself. With the increased number of students there have simply not been enough busses to hold them all. They have been so crowded that people are standing in two rows down the aisle. People will often be so close to you that their backpack will hit you in the face. The green buses along with the blue bus are probably two of the most crowded ones. At the end of August the green bus had a total of 27,197 students that month who rode the green bus alone. The total number of students who rode the bus the month of August was 108,797. In August 2009 a total of 86,286 students rode the bus that month. Compared to this time last year we have already experienced an increase of 22,511 students riding the bus. And these numbers will likely continue as the university grows. A simple solution to this problem would be to just add more busses to the routes. We are a fortunate university that allows us to bring our cars to campus and even though we complain about the prices of parking compared to some schools it’s still cheaper.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Blood Sports: Should They be Banned?
Blood sports are considered any sport or form of entertainment that involves violence against animals. As the name suggests, these sports usually involve blood being drawn, and often result in death of one or more of the animals. Today there are many blood sports including cockfighting, bullfighting, dog fighting, hunting, and fishing. Animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States are constantly working to limit and oppose animal violence and abuse. Despite their efforts, there are still many blood sports that take place all across the world.
One recent example of a blood sport that recieved a lot of national attention was the case of Michael Vick and his dog fighting trials. In 2007, Michael Vick was indicted for dog fighting in his Virginia home. Dog fighting is an intense blood sport in which two trained dogs are placed in a pin and forced to fight each other for some spectators entertainment. These fights tend to last at least an hour or until death. The cause of death in dog fighting ranges from blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection. If dogs survive the dog fight, they are routinely released back into a local community. Because of their violent past, they immediately become a risk to other animals and humans. According to the Humane society there are also many more concerns other than the safety of the dogs. New information has revealed that many kids attend dog fights. Not only are these kids being exposed to animal violence, but also to illegal drugs and weapons that are ever present at dog fights. These issues have been around long before the Michael Vick trials, but because of his popularity people are now much more aware of how violent and uncivil blood sports can be.
When people hear the words "blood sport," they tend to think of cockfightin, bullfighting, or dog fighting. However, there are actually many activities that are considered blood sports that are not really activities but ways of life. These activities include hunting and fishing. Before agricultural improvement and the industrial revolution, hunting and fishing were the main ways of obtaining food and clothing. Even today there are many cultures that depend on hunting and fishing for their survival. Without these "blood sports" many cultures today would decline and ultimately become extinct.
All of creation is a gift to mankind. Because it is a gift we should be good stewards of it by caring for it, protecting it, and using it for our benefit. Our benefit is not violent animal cruelty, but instead, it is our survival which is found in food, clothing, and occasionally animal labor. Therefore, blood sports that support animal cruelty for entertainment such as cockfighting, bullfighting, and dog fighting should be banned worldwide. On the other hand, blood sports such as hunting and fishing should be allowed and even promoted to benefit mankind.
Bryce Vaught
One recent example of a blood sport that recieved a lot of national attention was the case of Michael Vick and his dog fighting trials. In 2007, Michael Vick was indicted for dog fighting in his Virginia home. Dog fighting is an intense blood sport in which two trained dogs are placed in a pin and forced to fight each other for some spectators entertainment. These fights tend to last at least an hour or until death. The cause of death in dog fighting ranges from blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection. If dogs survive the dog fight, they are routinely released back into a local community. Because of their violent past, they immediately become a risk to other animals and humans. According to the Humane society there are also many more concerns other than the safety of the dogs. New information has revealed that many kids attend dog fights. Not only are these kids being exposed to animal violence, but also to illegal drugs and weapons that are ever present at dog fights. These issues have been around long before the Michael Vick trials, but because of his popularity people are now much more aware of how violent and uncivil blood sports can be.
When people hear the words "blood sport," they tend to think of cockfightin, bullfighting, or dog fighting. However, there are actually many activities that are considered blood sports that are not really activities but ways of life. These activities include hunting and fishing. Before agricultural improvement and the industrial revolution, hunting and fishing were the main ways of obtaining food and clothing. Even today there are many cultures that depend on hunting and fishing for their survival. Without these "blood sports" many cultures today would decline and ultimately become extinct.
All of creation is a gift to mankind. Because it is a gift we should be good stewards of it by caring for it, protecting it, and using it for our benefit. Our benefit is not violent animal cruelty, but instead, it is our survival which is found in food, clothing, and occasionally animal labor. Therefore, blood sports that support animal cruelty for entertainment such as cockfighting, bullfighting, and dog fighting should be banned worldwide. On the other hand, blood sports such as hunting and fishing should be allowed and even promoted to benefit mankind.
Bryce Vaught
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Cell Phone Usage While Driving
Today, most Americans use cell phones to connect with others in their daily life and use these devices as a means to communicate personal and business related ideas from all over the country. Living in such a fast paced society we are forced to use cell phones in all sorts of places and environments and often sacrifice our attention to focus only on the conversation at hand. This lack of attention can be dangerous in many situations, but some argue that it is most dangerous while driving in your vehicle. To combat this many states have outlawed text messaging while driving to help prevent accidents from happening. However, the total ban of cellular phone usage while driving may be the only way to decrease a growing level of car accidents in this country.
According to a study of focus groups, by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, people believe that there are many benefits to using your cell phone while driving. They believe that some of these benefits are an expanding of your productive time, the ability to contact emergency services, and the strengthening of social networks. Obviously, many of us see the value in these things, but a person could also do all of these outside of the vehicle.
As in many things when there are benefits there are risks. In the same study, by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, hazards of using your cell phone while driving were also examined. The study estimated that cell phone distractions caused 2,600 traffic deaths every year, and 330,000 that result in moderate or severe injuries. This study was conducted in 2003 and if you calculate, starting in 2004 until now, you see that there are an estimated total of 15,600 deaths during that time. In another study cited by a New York Times article, in July of last year, it was found that drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level. Even though these are just estimates it is possible for one to see that these risks outweigh any benefit.
My idea to help prevent the possibility of car accidents is to outlaw drivers from using their cellular phones in the vehicle entirely. This would mean that there would be no text messaging and the making or receiving of calls. I understand that this law would be hard to police, but I believe that the threat of a fine would help many people to become less dependent on their phones in the car. Although we do live in a fast paced society it is still necessary to slow down for our own safety and this is just one way of doing that.
Jacob Wright
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"Young Americans" (mis)Use the flag
Sheila Pree Bright’s “Young Americans” is a photo essay which seeks to capture national identity among young Americans. The work, published in 2009 on CNN.com’s “Living” segment[1], portrays youngsters between the ages of 18 and 25 using the American flag to explore and express their identity. Bright’s art has aggravated Americans like army veteran Dave Jackson, of the online journal, Scoop. Reacting to the photo-shoot, Jackson insists[2] that some of the portrayals of “American”-ness in the photo essay are disgraceful, insulting and disrespectful. And some of the photographs are certainly uncommon and daring, bordering on the misuse of the flag. However, the photographs need to be placed in context of the testimonials of each of the individual subjects. It is only through understanding the intent behind each individual expression (i.e. each individual photograph) that the photo essay can be read as more than just vulgar and dishonorable handling of this symbol of national pride.
Ostensibly, as Dave Jackson points out, only some of the pictures (Jackson singles out Kirstin Alexis Kucks and Amy C. Ashton) seem to comply with the national flag code. In others, the flag is represented much more informally. One young lady drapes the flag as a blanket, another fashions it into ethnic / traditional garb, Madelyne Oliver goes so far as to wear it as a hijab. To Jackson, these photos are a sad indictment of the un-patriotic youth of America. This criticism however is perhaps too harsh. The fashioning of the flag into a traditional outfit seems to be a unifying, rather than a divisive sign – the synthesis and convergence of two identities rather than the privileging of one over the other.
This comfortable middle-ground however, falls through in the much bolder photograph of David Gutierrez, who seems to be ‘purging’ the flag from his system. It is almost impossible to remain unaffected by such a representation of American identity. However, the photo by itself only conveys half the story. Each photograph (atleast on the website) is accompanied by a short interview explaining what it means for the subject to be American. Gutierrez’s testimony expresses concern about multi-ethnicity, its place and reception in America. His interview contextualizes the (mis)use of the flag. And within this context, the flag is transformed from a symbol of national identity to a symbol of individual expression.
Each of these youngsters only seems to be using the flag to represent the issue / idea that was the most important to them. The flag itself then, becomes a ‘prop’ through which individual identity is represented. Thus understood, the intent rather than the manifestation is foregrounded. Without this context, the photographs may seem offensive and insensitive. However, it is only within this context – only when the viewer focuses on intent – that these specific representations of the flag can be understood as a reasonable exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
Aishwarya G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See the photo essay: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/03/young.americans.bright/index.html
[2] See: http://blog.scoop0901.net/life/photographer-shows-young-americans-and-flag-at-cnn/
Ostensibly, as Dave Jackson points out, only some of the pictures (Jackson singles out Kirstin Alexis Kucks and Amy C. Ashton) seem to comply with the national flag code. In others, the flag is represented much more informally. One young lady drapes the flag as a blanket, another fashions it into ethnic / traditional garb, Madelyne Oliver goes so far as to wear it as a hijab. To Jackson, these photos are a sad indictment of the un-patriotic youth of America. This criticism however is perhaps too harsh. The fashioning of the flag into a traditional outfit seems to be a unifying, rather than a divisive sign – the synthesis and convergence of two identities rather than the privileging of one over the other.
This comfortable middle-ground however, falls through in the much bolder photograph of David Gutierrez, who seems to be ‘purging’ the flag from his system. It is almost impossible to remain unaffected by such a representation of American identity. However, the photo by itself only conveys half the story. Each photograph (atleast on the website) is accompanied by a short interview explaining what it means for the subject to be American. Gutierrez’s testimony expresses concern about multi-ethnicity, its place and reception in America. His interview contextualizes the (mis)use of the flag. And within this context, the flag is transformed from a symbol of national identity to a symbol of individual expression.
Each of these youngsters only seems to be using the flag to represent the issue / idea that was the most important to them. The flag itself then, becomes a ‘prop’ through which individual identity is represented. Thus understood, the intent rather than the manifestation is foregrounded. Without this context, the photographs may seem offensive and insensitive. However, it is only within this context – only when the viewer focuses on intent – that these specific representations of the flag can be understood as a reasonable exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
Aishwarya G.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See the photo essay: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/03/young.americans.bright/index.html
[2] See: http://blog.scoop0901.net/life/photographer-shows-young-americans-and-flag-at-cnn/
Should the University of Arkansas require community service for graduation?
Many U.S. schools require community service on the basis that it encourages students to become involved in their local communities/governments, possibly for life. Some proponents of mandatory service claim that through completing community service, students who rely on scholarships/grants to attend college may offset some of the costs to the society that supports them. Also, community service builds experience for students’ résumés, and it allows them to form contacts with members of their community. The experience and the contacts that students gain through such service may prove valuable in finding jobs later on.
Many opponents to mandatory community service claim that the service hours interfere with studying and homework, causing students’ grades to suffer. Others claim that required community service during high school or college does not ensure that students will continue to be active citizens after graduation. Some opponents even claim that requiring community service for graduation will result in diminished volunteerism because it encourages students to volunteer for their own personal gain; once students have fulfilled their requirements, they would not continue to do volunteer service because it no longer serves their needs.
I propose that the University of Arkansas should require community service hours for all bachelor’s degree students. The potential benefits to students and society (e.g. civic involvement, work experience, community relationships) outweigh the potential damages of required community service (e.g. self-serving volunteerism, diminished volunteerism). In order to avoid interference with studying, and in order to regulate the documentation of service, the university could add a community service course to the general education requirements. The course would consist of weekly service projects/programs approved by the university staff in conjunction with local public service and non-profit organizations.
One potential problem with such a course would be that many students require special accommodations. Some local volunteer opportunities cannot accommodate disabled students. For example, volunteers at the Rogers Recycling Center must be able to handle bending and heavy lifting. However, there are numerous volunteer opportunities that any student can do, regardless of physical ability. For example, the Fayetteville Public Library offers volunteer positions for reading stories to children and preparing arts and crafts materials, which involves minimal physical exertion.
Another potential problem would be transportation and scheduling for the service projects. By organizing the service requirement as a course, the university would ensure that students in the course would have three hours per week available for service. During what would be lecture time, students could complete service projects under the supervision of a professor. Transportation, if necessary, would be provided by the university. If funding for class transportation were an issue, the class could focus on projects that do not require special transportation. The Fayetteville Public Library, for example, is located along the Brown Bus Route, so students would already have handicapped-accessible transportation to the site. Another cost-efficient option would be to have some community service projects on campus.
Melanie Kyles
ENGL 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)