On the MSNBC news site, I read a news story about how congress and the Obama Administration are considering putting a nationwide ban on texting while driving. Currently, several towns in the chicagoland area have bans on texting while driving, and by 2010, the entire state of Illinois will ban texting while driving. Should the nation follow?
I believe that the nation should ban texting while driving because texting is a task that requires use of at least one hand and also involves looking at the phone screen, so any texter texting while driving has only one or no hands on the wheel and is focusing on the screen rather than the road. Also, there have been deaths from accidents connected to texting while driving. On a personal level, if i'm texting in the halls, I bump into people, so i've never even tried to text while operating a car.
In class, we have been discussing how laws reflect the culture enforcing them. How does the illinois enforcement of texting bans, and the possible nationwide ban of texting, reflect us as an american nation? First of all, these laws reflect that texting is now a phenomenon. I vaguely remember news stories from when texting was a new thing, and now it's quite commonplace to text. My parents even text me on occasion. But on another level, I think that we are becoming enveloped in our newly technological world (think about it; our parents didn't have sophisticated computers growing up) and we are reaping the significant benefits but also seeing the negative effects of a world obsessed with communication. What do you think texting bans say about us as a nation? Should texting be banned throughout the country?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
A woman is pregnant, but with another couple's child
I saw a two stories on the today show (one from the pregnant mother, and another from the the biological parents ) this morning about a woman who underwent In Vitro Ferilization, but was implanted with another couple's baby. This woman, Carolyn Savage, and her husband Sean, didn't want to abort the baby, so she is going to give birth in two weeks and give the baby to the biological family.
What would you do if you were in this situation? Would you want to raise the baby yourself or give it to the biological family? What would you do if you found out another woman was pregnant with your biological child? Mrs. Savage, who already has three children, has been told that due to health reasons that this must be her last pregnancy.
Personally, it's hard for me to say what I would think or how I would feel, because I can't even begin to picture myself in this situation. From an outsider's standpoint, I feel that Mrs. Savage is doing the right thing by giving the baby to the biological family, but this raises more questions. Do either parents have the right to say that the child is theirs? A person shouldn't be owned by anyone. If the families weren't able to talk it through and if the pregant woman didn't agree to hand the baby over, who should be one to determine who raises the baby?
As Americans, should a woman have rights to her children because she gave birth to him/her or because she is the biological parent?
What would you do if you were in this situation? Would you want to raise the baby yourself or give it to the biological family? What would you do if you found out another woman was pregnant with your biological child? Mrs. Savage, who already has three children, has been told that due to health reasons that this must be her last pregnancy.
Personally, it's hard for me to say what I would think or how I would feel, because I can't even begin to picture myself in this situation. From an outsider's standpoint, I feel that Mrs. Savage is doing the right thing by giving the baby to the biological family, but this raises more questions. Do either parents have the right to say that the child is theirs? A person shouldn't be owned by anyone. If the families weren't able to talk it through and if the pregant woman didn't agree to hand the baby over, who should be one to determine who raises the baby?
As Americans, should a woman have rights to her children because she gave birth to him/her or because she is the biological parent?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What is causing the decline in Pop Culture's quality?
As an avid reader of the Entertainment Weekly magazine, i'll admit that one of my favorite parts is reading the editorials by Stephen King. I'm always surprised to find that even though he is almost fifty years older than I am, I frequently agree with, understand, or connect with his points of view. In my defense, however, I believe that this is due to his extraordinary ability of connecting with his readers rather than me having a mind similar to that of a sixty year-old. The editorial in this week's magazine, What's Next for Pop Culture?, struck a chord in my mind. He discussed the decline in the quality of movies and network tv, the decline of paper books, and the decline of radio programming. His essential argument is that the changes in pop culture today are for the worse, and in his own words, "When crap drives out class, our tastes grow coarser and the life of the imagination grows smaller."
One of the examples of the decline of the movie industry that Mr. King provided was that several high quality movies are only experiencing small releases while movies like Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen are released on thousands of screens.
Why is this? In my opinion, it is because people don't want the movies to be an intellectual experience anymore; instead, movies are just an escape from the negative things in our world. I think that this has to do with the recession. Why? The recession is making things harder for a lot of americans. The movie industry itself is doing pretty well despite the recession, but people come to the theaters wanting more cheerful and less analytical films because of the added stress the weak economy brings.
Have we lowered our standards? I think so, but is that our fault? I think that our standards would be higher if studios chose to produce films for the quality of writing and idea rather than viewer grabbing potential. Does quality of writing result in viewer potential or not?
Is the economy actually related to this change or does this change reflect America as a whole? Could it be that Americans nowadays consistently prefer films like Transformers to more philosophical films? Is it a reflection on my generation or on Americans as a whole?
One of the examples of the decline of the movie industry that Mr. King provided was that several high quality movies are only experiencing small releases while movies like Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen are released on thousands of screens.
Why is this? In my opinion, it is because people don't want the movies to be an intellectual experience anymore; instead, movies are just an escape from the negative things in our world. I think that this has to do with the recession. Why? The recession is making things harder for a lot of americans. The movie industry itself is doing pretty well despite the recession, but people come to the theaters wanting more cheerful and less analytical films because of the added stress the weak economy brings.
Have we lowered our standards? I think so, but is that our fault? I think that our standards would be higher if studios chose to produce films for the quality of writing and idea rather than viewer grabbing potential. Does quality of writing result in viewer potential or not?
Is the economy actually related to this change or does this change reflect America as a whole? Could it be that Americans nowadays consistently prefer films like Transformers to more philosophical films? Is it a reflection on my generation or on Americans as a whole?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A School District's Reaction to Obama's Speech
Today at 12:00 Eastern Pacific time, President Obama made a speech to students urging them to "set your own goals for education" and to stay in school. However, schools in Wheaton sent a message (which can be found on the blog An American Studies) out to the parents in the district saying that the president's speech "will not be broadcast to students" because the district did not have "an opportunity to preview his presentation and we do not have time set aside during the school day to watch the speech".
First of all, why would it be nececary to preview a speech, made by the president, for an audience of kindergarten through 12th graders? I suppose it is understandable for one to question the content of a speech before it is made, however I find it extremely unlikely that President Obama would say anything innappropriate. President Obama, to my memory, has never sworn in any of his speeches, so why would he start in front of a group of kids?
Was it so risky that the nature of the speech might be inappropriate that it wasn't worth broadcasting a speech that might teach a very helpful lesson? With anything that might have questionable content, two things should be considered; a) how important is the lesson being taught? and b) how questionable is the content? If the content outweighs the lesson, then it would make sense to not show the material. However, if the lesson outweights the content, why in the world would you not show it? Also, who should be the one to decide which is more important?
First of all, why would it be nececary to preview a speech, made by the president, for an audience of kindergarten through 12th graders? I suppose it is understandable for one to question the content of a speech before it is made, however I find it extremely unlikely that President Obama would say anything innappropriate. President Obama, to my memory, has never sworn in any of his speeches, so why would he start in front of a group of kids?
Was it so risky that the nature of the speech might be inappropriate that it wasn't worth broadcasting a speech that might teach a very helpful lesson? With anything that might have questionable content, two things should be considered; a) how important is the lesson being taught? and b) how questionable is the content? If the content outweighs the lesson, then it would make sense to not show the material. However, if the lesson outweights the content, why in the world would you not show it? Also, who should be the one to decide which is more important?
Friday, September 4, 2009
How far will we go to achieve good grades?
A news story from CBS broadcasted on Tuesday told the story of a teacher in a New Jersey high school who accepted donations to one of her favorite charities as a form of extra credit. Allegedly, the charity was fake, and she took the money and kept it herself, receiving an estimate of $1,400 from her students during the 2008-2009 school year.
As citizens of America, we are in the fortunate group of countries where a high school education is so commonplace that many students take school for granted. This particular news story makes me wonder; Is achieving the "grade" the only academic goal that matters to high school students? That is, does it matter whether we acquired the knowledge of how to solve an algebraic equation, or the only important thing that we got an A in the class?
By paying for grades instead of studying or instead of improving them by work, we are achieving the end without any work or means. Is the means, the actual learning and acquiring of knowledge, worth anything to anyone anymore? Are learning and work important, or just the good transcript?
How important is it to teens today that they receive good grades? Is paying to improve your grade is an act of desperation or an act of laziness? Originally, I believed it was an act of desperation; why spend money on your classes when you could spend money hanging out with friends or to buy something like an Ipod or a phone? However, in a affluent neighborhood like the one I live in, would it be worth five bucks to not study for a test or to skip some homework? I'm not sure. What do you think?
As citizens of America, we are in the fortunate group of countries where a high school education is so commonplace that many students take school for granted. This particular news story makes me wonder; Is achieving the "grade" the only academic goal that matters to high school students? That is, does it matter whether we acquired the knowledge of how to solve an algebraic equation, or the only important thing that we got an A in the class?
By paying for grades instead of studying or instead of improving them by work, we are achieving the end without any work or means. Is the means, the actual learning and acquiring of knowledge, worth anything to anyone anymore? Are learning and work important, or just the good transcript?
How important is it to teens today that they receive good grades? Is paying to improve your grade is an act of desperation or an act of laziness? Originally, I believed it was an act of desperation; why spend money on your classes when you could spend money hanging out with friends or to buy something like an Ipod or a phone? However, in a affluent neighborhood like the one I live in, would it be worth five bucks to not study for a test or to skip some homework? I'm not sure. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
