Blog Stage 8: Commentary

I completely agree with Rafael and agree that this law in Arizona should not be passed. Racial profiling is wrong no matter what race you are. What the state of Arizona is doing is wrong. There are many other ways in capturing illegal immigrants. By stopping people at random they are discriminating against a certain type of people and they can be considered as being racists. They should question people based on facts and not suspicions. Just because someone is of the Hispanic race does not mean they are here illegally. There are in fact other people who are here illegally are they going to question those people too? Or are they just going to target the Hispanic race? If they are just going to target the Hispanic race they are being racist. This law should not be passed and it is wrong, people should not be randomly questioned based on their race.

Blog Stage 7: Gaming Rights

Is the banning of video games violating the First Amendment? Or is it the responsibility of parents to control what games their children are allowed to play? In 2005 the sate of California filed a lawsuit in which they wanted to fine retailers who sold violent games to minors. The New York Times claimed this to be a violation of the first amendment stating that “video games are a form of free expression”. Although the judge overruled California and stated that it did not violate the First Amendment and that minors also have First Amendment rights. Should we then allow minors to buy a video game in which the objective of the game is to rape women? And should it only be banned for minors and not adults?
There was a game that was created in Japan, “Rapelay”, in which the primary goal is to go out, find women or girls for that matter, and rape them. This game was banned from the shelves in stores; however it is still available for children to play on the internet, for free in some places. CNN claimed that this game “allows you to even impregnate a girl and urge her to have an abortion”. Is this even human? How can someone create such a thing as to encourage young children to rape someone? Then there are games such as “Grand Theft Auto”, which allows the gamer to go steal cars, buy prostitutes, kill people, do drugs etc… These sorts of games should be banned and should not even be allowed to be created. They create wrong images in the minds of children and they do violate the First Amendment. Many of these games are very graphic, and can even be categorized as pornographic. Some of these games should not even be allowed for adults. However, many of these extremely violent and sexual harassment games should be banned for good and not just for minors but for adults too.

Blog Stage 6: Commentary

I agree with Ralph in that there is no point in this treaty that President Obama is signing with Russian President Medvedev. If they were to make and sign a treaty it should be to get rid of all nuclear weapons not just one third of them. What is the point of even having so many nuclear weapons when the usage of just one is enough to blow up the entire earth? I also agree with President Obama's reasoning that he is doing this so that Iran won’t get too ahead in there nuclear building schemes, but it’s not like Iran is just going to stop just because every other country is signing a treaty claiming to hold only 1,550 nuclear weapons. Another thing, why does very country need, and want, 1,550 nuclear weapons? Isn’t it more than enough that they each just have one? I just think that they should just get rid of these nuclear machines altogether.

Blog Stage 5: A Healthy Choice

There are many schools who are serving unhealthy food in their cafeterias to children, many of whom are obese, underfed, or on their way to obesity. There are very few schools who offer their students healthy choices. Children are going to school and are eating greasy fries, pizza, burgers, with either a soda or fruit punch, then maybe they will get cake, fudge, or cookies for dessert. Many schools especially middle school and high schools have vending machines that many students use as substitutes for their lunch. Although they have removed vending machines from elementary schools and many middle schools, they should remove them from all schools entirely. Not only are they overpriced, but very unhealthy.
There is a Child Nutrition Act, mentioned in The New York Times, that is being presented to the Senate and should be passed. This will promote healthier foods at schools, and provide more organic foods and healthier options for children to choose from. This will help fight obesity as well, for child obesity is alarmingly increasing. Children are not getting the right nutrition and are also not exercising as they should be. By providing healthier options at school could instill in these children healthier eating habits from a young age. Congress should pass this bill; it would help with the recent Health Care bill that was passed. Children will be healthier and would therefore not develop rare diseases and this would reduce visitations to hospitals.
Although this bill is a very good star, it can use some improvements. It should include in there the removal of all vending machines in schools. It should also encourage more physical education in schools especially elementary and middle schools. The Senate should provide more funding, especially since the economy is improving. This something that should be strongly encouraged in all schools across the nation, there are too many children who are obese and it is mainly due to high car meals in schools, and buying all kinds of junk foods to fill their appetites. They see vending machines which provide them with mouth-watering candies, and chocolates, and ice-cold sodas. If they were to be removed they wouldn’t even think about it, out of sight out of mind. If this bill was passed it could be an improvement in children leading a health life-style from a young age.

Blog Stage 4

In this article from the Los Angeles Times, “Keeping Our Blood Supply Safe”, the author argues whether gay people should be allowed to donate blood or not. This article was written for the general public and for the homosexuals. The author states many facts and gives many statistics about the past and other blood donors, and how many of them actually transmitted any diseases. The author stated that there are many gay people who have wanted to donate blood in the past, but had been denied due to them having intercourse with another male. The author then goes on to say that there could be a possibility in the future for the homosexual community to donate blood because they have already extended so far with the gay marriage and all. Although they might be able to it might be restricted to men who have been sexually active in the past year. Finally he goes on to say that a recent study has shown that the actual risk of a gay person transmitting any disease is very small but it could cause a large problem. There are very few gay men who have actually restrained from sex in the past 5 years and of those there are probably very few who would even want to donate blood. The author presented a strong and valid argument based on many facts and statistics.

I agree with the author that gay people should be allowed to donate blood, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to use that blood, and there are many tests that can be done to detect any sort of diseases in the blood. I know because I have donated blood many times and they always take four bottles of samples for testing. They should not be discriminated against just because they are homosexuals. Yes, there was a time in the 1970’s and 1980’s when many thousands of people had been infected with AIDs, but with the technology now it can be detected almost right away in most cases. I believe that if someone wants to donate blood they should be able to, because even if someone were not homosexual, what’s the guarantee that they do not have an STD? Or some other disease of the blood?

Blog Stage 3: Critique

In this article in the New York Times, "Questions For Mr. Toyoda", the author argues that Toyota should’ve solved the problem of their cars accelerating for no particular reason. This article is intended for the general audience as well as the consumers who went through this horrific ordeal. The author pretty much stated many facts and incidents that had occurred in the past to keep the audience interested while presenting this argument. The author states that the President of the Toyota Company, Akio Toyoda, will have many questions to answer, due to the fact that this has been an issue since 2001, and just this past year Toyota decided to recall their cars, after killing at least 34 people. The author claimed that at first the government did not pay much attention to this issue and made Toyota recall only a mere 55,000 cars in 2007. Finally when a Police officer crashed and died two years later in 2009 did Toyota make their biggest recall, a whopping 4.3 million and another 3 million earlier this year. Why is it that people, when faced with problems, do not do anything until someone gets seriously injured, or dies? This is one of the questions that the author addresses in this article and the good news “is that the federal safety agency is now taking a much more aggressive stance” (1). It is clear that the author uses much facts and reasoning to support his claims and arguments. This article was a very successful one in presenting its facts and convincing the reader that Toyota did wrong to its buyers and should have dealt with this issue long before. I agree with the author in its argument that Toyota should have dealt with this issue when it was first brought up and not so late, especially not 8 to 9 years later. That was just ridiculous and I used to think the Toyota Company as one of the best car dealerships ever, I even own a Toyota Camry. I don’t think that neither the Toyota Company nor the Government, knowing about this, did a very good job on handling this issue. If they had just recalled those cars in 2001 when this issue was first brought up, all this could have been avoided and possibly have saved 34 lives. But now the question is how will Toyota convince people to trust them that they have fixed the problem?