Teaching to the Test

Standardized tests have by no means improved student achievement. After NCLB passed in 2002, the US slipped from 18th in the world in math to 31st place in 2009, with a similar drop in science and no change in reading. Standardized tests are an unreliable measure of student performance; they measure only a small portion of what makes education meaningful. "Teaching to the test" is replacing good teaching practices with "drill n' kill" rote learning; instruction time is being consumed by monotonous test preparation. Some schools allocate more than a quarter of the year's instruction to test prep when they should be focused on developing the education of the students. The excessive testing teaches students to be good at taking tests, but does not prepare them for productive adult lives. Standardized tests not only hurt the education of the students, but they also are an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers. 20. Open-ended questions on standardized tests are often graded by under-paid temporary workers with no educational training. Scorers make $11-$13 per hour and need only a bachelor’s degree, not necessarily related to education. Because the government treats the tests like a joke, not caring who grades them, so do the students. It’s not uncommon to see a pattern or design made out of the many fill-in-bubbles. Standardized testing needs to be gotten rid of, it is nothing but a hindrance in education. 
       

Those Breeds

Should certain breeds of dogs, like pitbulls, be banned?

Yes, pitbulls, as well as many other dogs, have a reputation for not being the nicest of dogs, but I believe that it is a combination of the treatment they receive from their owners as well as the reputation they have that makes most dogs mean or unfavorable. I believe that with a good home and a little love, a dog, no matter its breed, will grow up to be a respectable pet. Instead of banning breeds, I think we should have a closer evaluation of the people inquiring about ownership. I think people that want to own a dog should have to go through a process where they are required to prove themselves capable of ownership. There are many people that think they are ready for a dog, but in reality aren’t. Sometimes, people are not aware of the commitment that comes with a dog, and others may have the wrong intentions for their pets, such as “dog fights.” “Dog fights” are when many people bring their dogs together to fight, sometimes to the death, untill there is a winner. It is stupid actions like these, as well as a lack of understanding (whether its with the dog or about the dog) that bring me to believe that it is almost never the fault of the dog, but always the fault of the owner.     

TV Trance

No, like cell phones, they won't cause cancer, but there are many good reasons to avoid them.

 

The Idiot Box, the Telly, the Boob Tube; it doesn't matter what you call it, it is one of the many reasons I think citizens of the United States are becoming fat and lazy. Hundreds, sometimes even thousands of captivating shows for your entertainment at your fingertips can keep the most proactive people from finishing what they started. I, myself, get caught by the bait of the "coach potato trap." Watching TV takes little to no thought; the moving pictures are placed before you, already with a plot and storyline. I think that it effects the younger generations the most. Instead of enjoying and exploring the outdoors, reading a book, or doing their homework they spend time watching their favorite TV characters. I remember when our imagination was the best play toy we could have; we could be super heroes, doctors, grown-ups, or wild animals. It still is the best toy; it just doesn’t get used as much with all of the new and easy to understand technology, like the television. Kids need to snap out of the TV trance and get outside and play. We all need to snap out of the TV trance.     

Cell Phones

I’ve heard lately that there are people that believe that cellular devices can actually cause tumors to form in the brain if used for too long. The studies, apparently, show that the radiation from the phone has the potential to cause the tumors. I would just like to say that this is a crock full of crap. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible light radiation, is non-ionizing and cannot cause cancer. Cell phone radiation levels are tested and certified by the manufacturer to meet safe levels which have been established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In fact, there are some studies that suggest that the use of a cell phone actually decreases the risk of developing the brain tumors glioma and meningioma. If cell phones were actually causing cancer, which they’re not, we would expect a rise in the rate of brain and other related cancers; according to the National Cancer Institute, there has been no increase in the incidence of brain or other nervous system cancers despite the large increase in cell phone usage. Cell phones are not at all to blame for cancer or tumors; the radiation in a cell phone is less harmful then the visible rays of light outside. So, if you are worried about getting cancer from cell phone usage, don’t go outside.  

Hunger Games Series v. Harry Potter Series

 

These two fantasy series are some of the best books I've ever read; to choose one series over the other seems nearly impossible. Because I read the Harry Potter series first, and it was the book series that got me interested in reading, I’d have to say that the Harry Potter series is the slightest bit better. The HP series is much longer, four books longer to be exact. Some would say that because it’s longer it is time consuming and therefore not as good as the Hunger Games, but it is because it is so long that it is amazing. The HP series is able to hold your attention through a series of seven books. The HP series also fits the bill well in terms of fantasy; the Hunger Games does as well, but there is still the creepy feeling that it may one day actually happen. In the HP series, a boy is surprised to find out that he is a wizard; in the HG series, a girl is surprised to find that her younger sister is chosen for the “games.” Both are fantastic series. I suggest both series to anyone who has been living under a rock and hasn’t yet got to reading them.

Violence in Video Games

We see it all the time, teenagers and children playing violent video games where the point is to kill as many people or break as many laws as possible (if either of these can be considered a point). Some say that violent video games are a gateway to real violence, but others argue that the games are for pure enjoyment or letting off steam. I can understand how someone may think that a violent video game could cause someone to act violent towards society sooner or later, but I don;t believe that it is video games alone that would cause someone to follow the route to violence. I know from experience that video games with violence are helpful in letting go of some of the daily pressures people have put on them; I think that it is possible that killing a blob of pixels can keep the most stressed out person from wanting to kill another person. Video games aren't ever the only reason someone resorts to actual violence; I believe that many other things are built up, for examples, abuse and harrassment. 

Although I see video games as nothing put fun and stress relief, I would have to agree that age limitations should be placed on the more inappropriate/violent games. Tens year olds should by no means be playing Grand Theft Auto. I wish that all parents were a little more strict about giving their children only the games that are apropriate for their age.

Gay Marriage

This is just another classic example of people acting completely primitive. It’s the same fight being fought over and over again, “Marriage traditions need to be upheld,” or “The very sanctity of marriage is at risk!” These are the same fighting words we’ve seen for centuries. It started as a reason for why interracial marriages shouldn’t be allowed, but now it has made its way back into the mind of folks again for one of the few reasons gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized. Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent; why should two men or women who love each other be deprived of the same experience that a man and woman can have? There is not a single reason that I’ve heard that makes sense as to why two people who love each other can’t be married. So what if it’s “not traditional,” if they pay taxes to the states/country, they should be able to have the same benefits, regardless of their sexual orientation. Finally, many states have started to legalize the marriage between two men or women, or even just recognize a civil union with the same benefits.  There are also many new communities and groups forming, like LGBTQ, which stands for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, and now also questioning.  They deserve to love whomever they want, man or woman.

LGBTQ nation

School Lunches

I don’t think there is much of a debate here; in a majority of public schools, lunches are made by women who grab boxes of questionable frozen things and warm them up in ovens for students everywhere. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a meal that was actually cooked for once? Of course, but, unfortunately, home cooked is expensive, and expensive is something public schools can’t afford. Recently, many schools around the country have been forced into new regulations in which they have to serve smaller portions and healthier choices. I don’t disagree with healthier foods, but they taste like, well for lack of better terminology, nasty. It’s not just because they’re healthier now either, there were only ever a few school lunches where kids felt satisfied. In some schools, kids are told to take either a fruit or vegetable for a side, but after the student leaves the lunch line, the fate of the healthy side is in the hands of the student (most end up in the trash). Smaller portions at school is not going to end the obesity in America; it instead is going to leave the kids that may not get a full, or quite frankly, any meal at home, hungry. There are many kids like this around the country that depend on the school to provide them with a filling meal, something they can’t always get at home. School lunches are cheap. I actually mean that in a good way; they are usually under a couple of dollars, but there are times where I’ve thought eating a couple of dollars would have been more filling and appetizing then what I got for lunch. Folks will argue that if a kid doesn’t want to eat what they’re offered, they can bring lunch, but in today’s working world many parents are too busy to pack a lunch for their kids and most kids won’t do so themselves. I just wish we would take a little more time and effort in this country to provide meals that don’t look like they want to get up and walk off the tray, and to instead make something with fresh ingredients.     

Drinking Age

To be point blank, it’s too high. Rather than 21, it should be 18. When a person turns 18 years old, they become recognized as an adult; old enough to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military - which includes risking one's life. If an 18 year old can decide to risk their life by joining the military or starting to smoke, they should be able to risk their lives by consuming alcohol. If the drinking age was lowered, what are now underage drinkers (18-20 year olds) could drink alcohol in a safe environment, instead of sneaking it around like they do now. Many people will argue that a higher drinking age limits the amount of accidents that come with driving while intoxicated, but many countries with a drinking age of 18 have similar or better drunk driving statistics than the United States. Although the United States increased the drinking age to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21. Although I don’t necessarily think that it will happen, it is possible that if the drinking age was lowered, it would become less of a taboo to participate in its consumption. Half of the fun of drinking is said to be in the rush you get from breaking the law. The drinking age is extremely ineffective, 72.2% of 12^th graders were reported to have, at one time or another, tried alcohol. Enforcing a drinking age of 21 is given low priority or ignored by many law enforcement agencies due to resource limitations, statutory obstacles, perceptions that punishments are inadequate, and the time and effort required for processing and paperwork. An estimated 2 of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 result in an arrest. Having a drinking age of 21 is nothing more than a waste of time and money.

Welfare

The intention with welfare is to aid people in need. As an eye witness, I know that, unfortunately, the welfare system is all too often corrupted. I don’t disagree with the idea of helping people; there are many people in the country that deserve or desperately need help. What I do disagree with, however, is the system; there are so many ways to, well, beat the system. There are many people taking advantage of the money that comes from the hardworking and deserving, people who actually work for their money.

When I think of welfare, I think of the people I see pulling out their welfare cards to purchase soda, candy, chips, and any other junk food. One experience that infuriated me was when I was in a grocery store, and in the check-out line was a man with a cart full of Mountain Dew. The cashier told him it would be cheaper to purchase the two liter bottles instead of his six packs of bottles. He replied, “I don’t care,” and whipped out his welfare card to pay for the groceries. This sort of behavior is uncalled for, and this is only part of it; there is also a lot of fraud. I don’t want to get into how corrupt the system is, but I do know how to fix it.

To fix it would take starting from scratch. People on welfare would have to prove they have ambition. They will be put to work doing public cleanups or any job that needs to be done, if they do not already have a job of their own. In this welfare program you will need to work for the money when work needs to be done. There won’t be welfare cards; instead there will be welfare coupons good for meat, potatoes, bread, fruits and vegetables, and milk. Some argue that this brings embarrassment, and if that’s the case, I say, “good.” Good, because one more embarrassed person on welfare is one more person that will work their hardest to get off it. People should be helped but they shouldn’t be spoon fed the way they are now on our current system. Right now, welfare sucks; it sucks the money right out of the pockets of the hardworking people in this country of ours.

  

Capital Punishment

Should criminals ever be sentenced to death?

I believe that there are many crimes committed where either endless torturing or a death sentence would be the best consequence. Many would say that violence is not the answer, and to this I would agree; if the criminals hadn’t committed violent acts toward society, we wouldn’t need to have repercussions as extreme as death. Some are worried that without concrete evidence, usually meaning DNA evidence, no one can be sure that the person convicted is truly at fault. In 2001, there were 86 wrong convictions; this is a lot, until you realize that that number is out of the 3,581 criminals that have been sentenced to death. What this means is that 97.6% of the time, the criminal is at fault. I agree that it would be upsetting if an innocent person was sentenced, but the truth is, is that it is highly unlikely that they are not to blame. The death penalty should be used, not only because people will take more time to consider the consequences, but also because taxes are what keeps criminals in prison. When criminals convicted of major crimes are sentenced to death instead of life in prison, that is one less convict society has to pay to have kept alive when they deserve death.

For what kind of crimes should someone be sentenced to death?

  

                The power to takes someone’s life should not be taken lightly, even when the person is a criminal. Criminals convicted of the following should be sentenced to death:

·         Violent Crimes (arson, burglary, child Abuse, domestic violence, hate Crimes, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, terrorist threats, etc.)

·         Sex Crimes (molestation, child pornography, indecent exposure, prostitution, rape, sexual battery, etc.)

·         Fraud Crimes (credit card fraud, forgery, identity theft, insurance fraud, internet fraud, securities & investment fraud, tax evasion, tax fraud, telemarketing, etc.)

Prostitution

Should it be legal?

At first, I thought, “Why the Hell not?” America is a free country; they should be allowed to make a job out of it if they like. If someone wants to give sexual favors for a profit, who am I to say no? With the harsh decline in economy, legalizing prostitution would open up a whole new career possibility; perhaps the condom industry would rise. Some may think that “selling sex” is unprofessional, but I think we know from Pretty Woman that prostitution can, in fact, be classy if you sell to the top quality customer. Well, I started to think deeper and deeper into the subject, and I realized that legalization of prostitution could take a turn for the worse. Prostitution is not anything close to classy; if you really consider how it is portrayed in the movie Pretty Woman, you will find that not only does the main character want to get an education and a decent job, but she is also almost taken advantage of, raped, when another character realizes that she is a prostitute. The reality of a prostitute being able to find a wealthy, pleasant man that pays to have their company for a week is not in existence, in my mind. Prostitution doesn’t lead to happy endings like the one we know and love in Pretty Woman. What it can lead to are STDs, rapes, and sex trafficking. Obviously, with sex, there is a chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease. When someone is paying someone they don’t know to have sex, then there is no knowledge of one another’s pasts or diseases, highlighting one of the many dangers of prostitution. There is also the chance of rape; when a person is willing to sell themselves, others may see that the said person doesn’t have respect for themselves and they don’t think that they need to have respect for them then either. In the case of prostitution, I would consider it more to be thievery; the rapist is essentially stealing the service. The legalization of prostitution could also make it more difficult for officials to crack down on sex trafficking. Prostitution not only brings behind it the increased possibility of contracting a STD, but also unwanted pregnancies.

After considering the many disadvantages to the legalization of prostitution, I realized that any positive outcomes would be trivial to the negative ones. Prostitution should stay the way it is, illegal.        

If you have never heard of or seen the movie Pretty Woman, here is the original trailer for the movie...

  

M&M's vs Skittles

M&M's or Skittles? It is a question that I believe is asked purely on the fact that they are similarly colored and shaped. In reality, asking which people prefer is like asking for them to choose between having their arm cut off horizontally or vertically, both ways result in the loss of a part of an arm, but both are very different ways. Although it’s difficult to choose, the chocolaty goodness of the colorful Ms can’t be beat, especially not by the sometimes-fruity-medicine flavor of Skittles. My reasoning doesn’t stop there. M&M's have been uniquely designed so that they don’t melt in your hand; yes, Skittles don’t melt either, but they’re also not chocolate so there is no reason for them to melt. Skittles has the rainbow, but M&M's has a cast of colorful characters that all of America knows and loves; my favorite time to see them is around Christmas time and during the Super Bowl. Some will say that Skittles is a bag  full of different flavors while M&M's is a bag full of chocolate. They forget, however, that M&M's come in all different kinds of flavors: regular, peanut, peanut butter, mint, raspberry, pretzel, etc. Besides, the flavors of Skittles are so similar, I can’t tell the difference between half of them.  I think it is obvious that M&M's can beat Skittles any day, but then again, I guess it really matters only on what you’re in the mood for, candy covered chocolate Ms, or chewy and fruity Ss.    

Textbooks or Tablets?

 It is a question that followed, not too far behind, recent advances in technology.  Yes, textbooks are heavy and have the potential to cause back problems, but textbooks are the better of the two.  Tablets allow the students to highlight what they’re reading, (if they can read off of the bright screen without getting a headache) but, although many teachers disapprove, textbooks can also be highlighted or have notes taken in them. The digital screens of tablets can make it hard for one to concentrate on what they’re supposed to be learning. Not only does the bright light make it difficult, but there is also the option of downloading and playing games or surfing the web, something that is all too tempting for students. Since we’re on the topic of surfing the web, many students live in homes that do not have the Wi-Fi connection they would need in order to do assignments. Printed textbooks cannot freeze, crash, or get hacked, unlike their competitor, the tablet.  Tablets, although they weigh a fraction of the amount of textbooks students are forced to carry, cost a significant amount more than textbooks alone would. Hundreds of textbooks are ruined and/or lost every year; it doesn’t make sense to give the same irresponsible students a piece of equipment that can be so easily broken and lost. It has been proven that people who read print text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read digital text.  

Corporal Punishment

Corporal Punishment, or spanking, is a topic of interest that dates back to the 10th century B.C. It has been used for many reasons, but the main thing people associate spanking to is the open-handed slap to the buttocks used on misbehaving children and teenagers. Many see spanking as a form of torture that may lead them to feel or behave violently towards others; I, however, see it as a controlled form of discipline. Yes, there is a line that can be crossed between what is spanking and what is abuse, but I think that the line is  rarely accidently crossed; I don’t think that caring and loving parents who occasionally give their child a good beating, when the child has misbehaved, will cause any violent notions in the child or bad memories. I think, instead, that the child will come to a much quicker conclusion of what is acceptable in society; they will quickly know what is “good” and what is “bad” behavior. Spanking can bring about a child’s respect for an adult, or parent. Spanking shows the child who is the boss; after the first time, just the threat of spanking can cause a child to stop misbehaving. Corporal punishment is nothing but a form of punishment that should be used to correct a child’s behavior.

Gun Control

Unfortunately, I’m not talking about being able to hit what you’re aiming at…

One of the most controversial issues, currently anyway, is the issue of gun control in the United States. The government has taken cautionary measures in order to protect citizens of the country, or at least that’s what they claim. The idea of more restrictions came after a terrifying event in Connecticut, where a school shooting occurred. This event quickly became nationwide news, and soon after, all were shocked and alarmed.  Parents started to question their own children’s safety at school. Schools were soon flooded with questions similar to the following: Is there a sufficient security system? Does anybody have access to the school? Are there precautionary measures in case a shooter did get in? Is my child safe?  These weren’t the only questions to arise, however, because others criticized the easy access to guns. Not only did the “easy access” to guns become a problem, but also their ability to kill people. The government almost immediately reacted to the public’s concern by placing further restrictions.  In New York State, Governor Andrew Cuomo went beyond the new restrictions  placed by the Obama administration, and also limited the rounds in magazines as well as banning assault rifles. 

I find that these new restrictions are more than unsatisfying; they are repugnant. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A majority of the time, it is a mentally unstable person that is committing these murderous crimes, but instead of restricting guns there should be proper care available for them.  Putting a stricter security system in place at school should help with the prevention of a shooting. When mass shootings do occur, they usually happen in public places like schools, libraries, or shopping centers, so perhaps, as a part of the new security system in schools, principals and teachers should be allowed to carry guns. Many will say that, “We shouldn’t fight violence with violence,” but when there is a person with a gun coming to shoot people there is a larger possibility of survival when there is something as equally strong to fight back with. The shooting in Connecticut was recognized nationally; faces of the now dead students and teachers were posted over any form of media that would reach the public, but almost no one heard of the incident in Texas where a shooter came into a school but there were no deaths. In this particular occurrence, the school was threatened by the presence of a shooter, but, luckily, the principal of the school carried a gun and was able to shoot the shooter before he could cause any harm. Notice, the faces of every child that survived this incident didn’t run across the screen of your television. Neither a restriction nor making guns illegal will stop the violent crimes; the people that commit crimes with guns are usually the ones who obtain their guns illegally, they’re usually not legal gun owners. If the government ever gets to the point where they may make guns illegal all together, in order to eliminate violent crimes, they should also consider making meth and heroin illegal too, so that there’s no more drug trade.