Americans spent almost 11 billion dollars on cosmetic surgery in 2012.
Plastic surgery for vanity is a waste of money and sends the wrong message to children and teenagers, plus it is a health risk.
People who are for plastic surgery say that it boosts the patient’s confidence and makes them feel better about themselves. But if plastic surgery wasn’t even an option, then more people would be happy with their appearance and could focus on more important things.
For one thing, it is ridiculous to decide that getting liposuction is worth the risk of dying. In the Los Angeles Times article, it stated that deaths could be as high as 10- 20 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This is just simply not worth the risk.
Also, since 1997, the amount of cosmetic surgeries has increased 250%, according to American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Children grow up watching their super star role models get plastic surgery, so when they are able, they think they aren’t pretty or special without having every “flaw” fixed. The standards for appearances are so high that many girls have to resort to surgery to make them feel accepted!
Another example of encouraging plastic surgery is the show Bridalplasty. In the show, 12 brides compete to win challenges, and for each win, they get one plastic surgery procedure from their wish list. The winner has all of her wishlist procedures done, and her fiance doesn’t see the bride post procedures until the wedding day..This shows the worst of both plastic surgery and reality tv.
Finally, nearly 500 million dollars was spent last year on laser hair removal alone. That money could be used to pay off some of our country’s debt or it could go into important government programs such as education. Americans need to get their priorities straight.
Plastic surgery should be banned, it is a waste of money, sends a horrible message to children, and can cost lives.
I agree with you on the fact that plastic surgery is not helpful and can be destructive as an example to children. People should accept who they are and embrace your flaws, because without them, you are no longer unique. Plastic surgery can cause more hurt than help, as it allows the patient to accept that they aren't good enough and need to be "fixed." They become reliant on the image of what they should look like, or what they are missing, instead of focusing on the positive characteristics they obtain.
Though your article is agreeable, I must bring up some a points which you neglected to recognize. Many victims to devastating injuries use reconstructive plastic surgery as a way to repair what has been damaged and put their lives back on the right track. Also, whether or not another person changes their body in ways you may not agree with, does not affect your life. I definitely do not condone nor agree with ideas of changing your appearance through plastic surgery, but people have the right to make their own decisions as long as it does not harm others or is absolutely harmful to the patient.
From Classy to Flashy: Miley Cyrus takes a turn for the worst By Celia Golod
The video opens with a raging Miley getting ready for what seems like a big party. Next thing you know she is “twerk”ing with four other women and acting in a very sexual manner. Not something her seven to ten year old fans should be watching.
Miley Cyrus’s career won’t stop. Like her most recent hit she’s taking a crazy ride on a rabid wrecking ball she steered right slamming into the iTunes top 100 however rebounded crashing into a hard wall of respect. These acts are inappropriate and not something a young “Hannah Montana” fan should see.
Despite this Cyrus is now into her twenties and can make her own decisions. However is it necessary to got to this extreme? Miley supporters claim that she is “God” but someone who behaves like Cyrus shouldn’t be hailed for her ludicrous acts.
“I don’t ever really plan to offend people, but sometimes that happens because people, they’re not open to what they don’t understand,” Miley said to Matt Lauer in an interview “my fans that are younger understand.”
Do her younger fans really understand? Twerking around on stage is really relatable Miley. 74.4% of people said on the latest billboards poll that they were “so offended” about her latest VMA’s performance. So clearly not enough of her “younger” fans understand.
Another person who came out bashing Miley after her latest performance is dwarf background dancer Jane Hollis. “I felt like a prop,” Hollis said “I want to be taken seriously.” Hollis was one of many dwarfs used in the VMA performance.
All of this backlash you’d think would make Cyrus consider changing her actions. But as stated before “she won’t stop” and is trying to make that clear with the release of her album “Bangerz”.
“Bangerz” is sure to stir up more negative comments; However, Miley seems ecstatic about the release.
If Cyrus doesn’t get her act together soon young children everywhere might try to impersonate her ways. Next thing we know there will be insane naked kids on every wrecking ball in the nation.
To The Editor: While I believe your article regarding Miley Cyrus was very accurate, I feel as if you are completely misunderstanding Miley’s intentions. She is not trying to hold on to her young viewers but instead, she wishes to address a new demographic of one more similar to her own age. She said herself in an interview, "I'm not saying you need to take a break because you're crazy. I'm saying you need to take a break so you can be crazy, and people aren't going to judge you.”. Similarly to most twenty year olds, Miley is figuring out who she wants to be as a person and what she likes and doesn’t like. The only difference here is that Miley has millions of people watching her.
Execute the Death Penalty By Natasha Ladhani For every eight people executed on account of capital punishment, one of them is innocent. This statistic is one of the reasons why in the past 13 years, the legislative branch has been struggling with the issue of repealing the death penalty. As a nation, we have dealt with the constant battle between morality and law.
Capital punishment not only provides too much power in the government, but also can be considered unconstitutional and immoral. As a country we must notice that taking away someone’s life is not the best way to punish crime.
There must be some sort of punishment for extreme crimes that differentiates itself from other minor crimes. Former constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein said, “Communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.” Fein supports the death penalty to ensure a consequence for what he considers wrong actions.
The many arguments against the death penalty range across from moral, religious and constitutional backgrounds.
When the option to repeal the death penalty was on the senate floor, many senators mentioned their state’s constitution as part of their argument. Part 1, Article 18 of the New Hampshire constitution states that punishment should reform, not “exterminate” mankind. This suggests the convicts should be taught to change their actions, not just eliminate them completely.
ProCon.org, a website dedicated to informing the public about the pros and cons of the death penalty claims that “almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral”. If the United States claim to have freedom of religion, why do they force the country to ignore its own faith based values?
Also on ProCon.org, a professor of law at New York University said, “Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned.” This professor points out whether or not it is okay for the government to have the say over a persons life and whether or not that is too much power.
At the end of the day, we the people must decide where we stand on issues such as this and decide if it is really in our hands to take a life away.
To the editor: I am glad that people are starting to realize our conflicting laws. Why should religion go against execution and our country allow freedom or religion, yet not follow these beliefs? I am glad that your article is out there and people can see how important it is to resolve this topic. I agree with the argument stated and I hope that in years to come the government will abolish this law.~Celia Better Golod
Next time I would work on using less repetition and finding another source. By using pro.com for two pieces of evidence it made it seem like you could have done more research.
Although I agree with your argument by having a death penalty it threatens those who might wish to commit one of these acts. By having a death penalty it might cause one to no longer want to commit these crimes.
Did you know that Finland, a nation with consistently well ranked education, has “no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools”?
The United States of America should look to this strategy as an example of an effective educational strategy. Standardized testing is an unsuccessful and unnecessary way of assessing children and young adults’ knowledge.
The Center of Education Policy released a study in 2007 that showed time spent on subjects such as social studies and science decreased about 145 minutes a week in 44% of school districts, to make more time for reading and math, the subjects seen of standardized test. Though some of the subjects and ideas seen on these tests can be valuable in the future, they are limiting the education of students and lowering their creative thinking, which is needed to be successful later in life.
The cost of standardized tests is ridiculously high, and comes from taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers in Texas paid around $88 million dollars on standardized tests from 2009 to 2012, according to the Texas Education Agency. Testing is a billion dollar business and is known to frequently make costly grading mistakes.
For all the money being put into standardized tests, there is not yet any evidence for how they have a positive effect students’ education and school progress. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, from 2001 to 2009, the United States went down from 18th to 31st place in international ranking in math, a significant drop for such a leading, powerful nation.
Standardized tests are pointless, without any great benefits to the education of the next generation. If anything, it is holding students back.
Dear editor Baffa, Your opinion almost changed my perspective. Spending $88 million on these tests is a startling fact, and is a waste of money. However, I would like to know your alternative to standardized tests, because aren’t they needed to make sure students are learning what they are suppose to? Also, I am confused on what the point behind the U.S’s dropped ranking was. If these tests are pointless, then why does it matter what the ranking was?
America’s obsession over beauty continues to increase without bounds. According to the National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery, Americans spent 11.5 billion dollars to perform 11 million cosmetic procedures in 2006.
While innovative technological advances have made maintaining one’s youthful appearance a reality, any plastic or cosmetic-related surgical procedure is impractical, expensive, and dangerous.
Although cosmetic procedures can offer a younger, more “attractive” appearance, the physical and psychological detriments of this surgery outweigh these benefits. Advocates of plastic surgery claim that plastic surgery can boost a patient’s self-esteem by correcting a bodily flaw. However, plastic surgery is not the best solution to improving one’s psychological wellbeing since plenty of equally effective alternatives to plastic surgery exist for dealing with unsatisfactory appearance.
As with any other surgical procedure, cosmetic surgery involves the risk of severe health complications. Patients can potentially experience the loss of sensation after undergoing cosmetic surgery. According to Dr. Nahai, President of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, cosmetic surgery patients undergo a 70% risk of experiencing damage in the nerves of the operated body parts.
Similarly, cosmetic surgery is only a temporary solution to an emotional issue. People who are insecure about their appearance shouldn’t receive cosmetic surgery because it only ameliorates the issue. A patient may experience temporary satisfaction with their body following their plastic surgery, but often this surgery fails to address the root psychological issues, resulting in extensive long term impairment.
According to a social experiment conducted by NOVA (Norwegian Social Research), symptoms of depression and anxiety [odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.57] and a history of deliberate self-harm (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.46-5.68), parasuicide (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.53-7.08) and illicit drug use (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.07-5.82) predicted prospective cosmetic surgery. Moreover, those who underwent surgery during the course of the study experienced a greater increase than other females in symptoms of depression and anxiety (t=2.07, p=0.04) and eating problems (t=2.71, p<0.01).
Furthermore, cosmetic surgery has the potential to exacerbate emotional distress, resulting in permanent psychological scars. According to ADDA (American and Depression Association of America), BDD disorder, more commonly known as body dysmorphic disorder can result from repeatedly going through plastic surgery. People who possess this disorder can never be satisfied with their own appearance, repeatedly undergoing cosmetic surgery and experiencing extensive damage to the nervous system.
Finally, cosmetic surgery is impractical. Plastic modifications to the body are highly conspicuous, defeating the purpose of undergoing plastic surgery. “I can always tell when people have plastic surgery” Sheryl Crow, an American singer, said.
In spite of the corrections to bodily flaws produced by cosmetic surgery, these unnatural modifications are highly noticeable and risky, both to the psychological and physical wellbeing of the patient. Thus, avoiding plastic surgery is the best course of action to take. If absolutely necessary, one should take precautions and consult a certified psychiatrist and cosmetic surgeon before doing cosmetic surgery.
To the Editor(Nathan) I commend you on your well written article taking a necessary stance against plastic surgery. You bring up some excellent points that I too have wondered before- What's the point of trying to make yourself prettier (and probably more likable) if you will only be criticized for it? You added an interesting point that people use plastic surgery to cover up some more pressing emotional issues they are trying to hide. This was a great point that I haven't heard before in arguments against plastic surgery so it provoked a lot of new thoughts and ideas.
Additionally, I heard something about plastic surgery gone wrong, in which case anesthesia did not work and the patient was able to fell everything without being able to do anything to let the doctor know they were in severe pain. I thought your arguments were very good on their own, I just thought that may be an interesting point to include.
15% of students seriously consider committing suiccides11% reported creating a plan, and 7% attempted to kill them self.
High school students deal with so much pressure to succeed in school and unnecessary homework just adds to the stress. While some assignments are important and would be wasteful to be done in class, for example reading and writing an analytical paragraph, some assignments feel like busywork. Which is just a waste of precious time in a high-schooler’s busy schedule.
Cory Ames, a teacher and a writer for Scientific Learnings says, “Sometimes, I feel as if I have been doing homework my entire life.”
This is another problem parents have with the excessive amounts of homework, they feel as though their children will grow up with childhood memories of only spending hours on homework.
The Maine Department of Education conducted interviews with high school dropouts and there is a striking trend, for most the final straw was just too much homework.
Professors at the Curry School of Education at UVA conducted a search, looking at transcripts and data from over 18,000 tenth graders and results show that homework doesn’t help improve grades. Students received the same scores with the homework as they did without the extra work.
Robert Tai, associate professor at UVA said with homework “There is a bit of a sweet spot,” especially when it comes to math, just enough helps give students enough practice but too much just over works them and is unnecessary.
It is important to go back to the original reason why homework was instituted in the first place- to develop a genuine love for learning and thinking minds for the future, but with homework wearing kids down, that devotion to learning is lost.
Your article (Putting Homework to the Test, 10/25/13) emphasizes on the point of how unnecessary homework adds to student's stress. I'd like to agree with this and include that too much homework for students limits the amount of leisure one receives and extracurricular activities. Like sports and instruments, activities outside of school are important to a student's life. Homework limits this. Furthermore, I believe you should make a concession to the other side. Many people believe that homework has a lot of value to it. You could definitely strengthen your argument by proving that the arguments from the pro-homework side is wrong. For example, one may say that homework helps absorb all the information in class. You could rebut this by saying that many people cheat in homework to avoid stress. Therefore, homework does little to help students learn more.
Editorial for Violent Video Games By: Ethan Chiu The Pew Research Center stated in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content-Harvard Health Publications. Video games are a common distraction for children and are influencing more to violence. According on the American Psychiatric Association, “Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts.” Therefore, violent video games must be banned. Some may say that violent video games do not directly correspond with people’s actions in the public eye. GTA 5 or Call of Duty may seem fun to many, but it gives ridiculous ideas to children. Bill Clinton stated, “‘Mortal Kombat,’ ‘Killer Instinct,’ and ‘Doom’...make our children more active participants in simulated violence.” Violent video games like GTA 5 allow people to do crimes that you would never do in public like beating up people randomly. Based on a study conducted by Gentile & Anderson in 2003, “Playing video games may increase aggressive behavior because violent acts are continually repeated throughout the video game”. Also, another violent video games like Call of Duty offers promotions for kills or missions. This shows people the devaluation of life. Killing that person portrayed on the tv screen does not bring any meaning for the person playing the video game. State Senator Leland Yee wrote in 2009, “With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior.” Furthermore, death does not affect a person from a video game standpoint. When playing a violent video game, the player does not realize the value of life. Taking one’s life does not go through that player’s mind. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “Children and adolescents can become overly involved and even obsessed with videogames. Spending large amounts of time playing these games can create problems and lead to... aggressive thoughts and behaviors.” The video game companies should limit violent video games for only people older than 17. I believe that people younger than 17 are not mature enough and will be negatively influenced by these awful video games. Sadly the majority of youth are playing violent video games.
Your article argues that violent video games leads to actual violence. I would like to echo these sentiments. Video games these day do contain an excessive amount of violence and gore. Exposing young children to such violence is never good, since they may actually perform these violent deeds in reality. Thus, I agree with your statement that violent video games are a poor influence for young children. However I think limiting violent video games is an ineffective way of addressing this issue. Young children can still play M-rated games. And so, I believe that the best solution is to teach kids about violence and its consequences to prevent actual violence from occurring.
More Adolescents Taking Virtual Over Reality By Colin Emerson
Children today seem to grow more and more reliant on the internet for social connection.Over 60% of children ages 13-17 have at least one social network profile, and many of the 60% spend at least two hours a day on social network websites.
Social networks are fun to a certain extent, but they turn into a waste of time when people depend on them for communication with others.
Sure social networks make communication convenient if people don’t have their phones or are simply more available on Facebook, but it’s a much better experience to have those exchanges in person. It is not too pleasing for parents to sit down at the dinner table and see their child(ren) with their faces engrossed in smart phones.
Kids need to learn self control using the social networking sites, and not check networks at such a consistent rate. According to MediaBistro, 23% of users check their Facebook account more than 5 times a day. Kids should not be so inclined to check social networks, because it takes away more interactions from people and makes them look antisocial(ironic).
Kids are also compelled to contribute to their profiles, for fear of not losing friends or followers. MediaBistro says over 5 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day. Kids not only consistently check profiles, but feel the need to use it on a regular basis.
Social networks are becoming entwined with common life as well. According to SocialMediaToday, 87% of all Americans know about Facebook and Twitter. People who do not know about social networks have now become part of a minority to an extent where it would be considered strange not to know of either two social networks.
Although social networks are useful for convenient communication, they should not be overused or in place of communication with people in person, because then they becomes a waste of time. Social networks are not important or productive enough for kids to spend the time they do online.
Let’s start reading again :). Because that definitely won’t work, maybe kids could try getting more involved in after school activities or sports. This way, kids will be able to interact with others in person much more, and will not have the desire to spend so much time on social networks. If they devoted to more activities
If kids do not start to use social networking sites and technology in moderation, society will end up like the society in The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury.
I am glad that someone can still see through the haze of all the social media these days. It is true that many youth of today spend too much time on social media, and I have witnessed many a time when kids are stuck on their phones checking Facebook or Twitter, sometimes so enthralled that they walk into fountains (viral video, anyone?). I would have liked to see you talk about some of the more detrimental effects of social media, other that just lack of social skills. Issues like cyber bullying, stalking, and distraction from academics seem to have escaped you critique.
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Odyssey Dawn, and Operation Restore Hope: these glorious names all given these ventures into foreign lands. But were these foreign interventions worth it? Should they continue?
Humanitarian interventions, and operations vital to U.S. national security are definitely necessary in some situations.
Arguments against foreign interventions cross a broad range of topics, mostly concerning the idea of “nation building.” This usually refers to the forceful ouster of the ruling regime in a country, and replacing it with a new democratic government.
A report by The Independent Institute, a libertarian think-tank, published a report describing much of its reasoning for why America should not pursue a policy of global interventionism. They contend democratic nation building results in the creation of weak puppet governments that soon give way to the very sort of dictatorships that were toppled originally. Furthermore, they argue that U.S. wars in the Middle East have increased anti-American sentiment, making these efforts entirely counter-productive.
“Nation building” aside, however, multilateral interventions remain necessary to ensure national security, as well as provide humanitarian relief.
In 2001, the U.S. began Operation Enduring Freedom, better known as the War on Terror. This operation toppled the Taliban government, who had been ruling Afghanistan and had condoned the presence of terrorists who orchestrated the September 11th attacks. Now, twelve years later, Afghanistan is still a country plagued by war and insurgency. However, the local government is democratically elected, and Afghan security forces continue to grow in strength and capability as they are trained by international forces. These local security forces will carry on the fight against terrorism inside the country. The mission - eliminating a regime promoting terrorism - has been largely successful.
The 2011 intervention in Libya was another example of a successful international operation. The U.S. Air Force, along with forces from many NATO countries, enforced a no-fly zone over Libya and carried out airstrikes against the Libyan military. With the help of this operation, Libyan rebel forces successfully overthrew the oppressive and cruel government of Muammar Gaddafi, which had been oppressing citizens fighting for freedom. Today, Libya is rebuilding itself under a democratically elected government.
U.S. participation in bombing campaigns for humanitarian reasons in Bosnia was another example of important interventions. NATO forces conducted strikes on the Serbian Army, which had been committing heinous war crimes against Muslim Bosnians. The Bosnian Intervention was important in stopping genocide. Had the U.S. and NATO not intervened, the genocide would have continued on unstopped. America has a responsibility to intervene in humanitarian crises, as does any other capable nation. We cannot stand by when militaries slaughter innocent civilians.
This is not to say that America should use military force just to serve our interests or “nation build.” But when we are threatened by terrorists, or when humanitarian action is sanctioned, we must act. Using or military cautiously, we must make sure our nation is protected, and that great injustices in our world are stopped.
I agree with you on so many levels about humanitarian intervention being vital to national security in some situations. When a country feels threatened especially after a horrific event such as 9/11, I don't disagree with invading the country the organization that was responsible for 9/11 originated in, and search for the organization. Your article (Keenan Ashbrook October 29th, 2013 at 10:59 AM) gives several examples of successful international operations, which ended in country's being free from their oppressors. I think it is important for other countries to experience freedom from corrupt governments, and it is the duty of wealthier countries to aid them in reaching that kind of freedom. However, the founding fathers (particularly George Washington in his farewell address) warned against intervening in international affairs. It can be economically costly to help other countries before making sure our own is stable. One matter that can be attributed to the United States' immense debt is the nonstop wars the U.S. has been in for the last ten years. We do need to help other countries in need, but we should try to solve our own problems instead of the problems of other countries. This way, we can improve the world without having our own economy deteriorate.
This is a superb activity
ReplyDeletePlastic Surgery Should Stop Now
DeleteBy Julia Clapham
Americans spent almost 11 billion dollars on cosmetic surgery in 2012.
Plastic surgery for vanity is a waste of money and sends the wrong message to children and teenagers, plus it is a health risk.
People who are for plastic surgery say that it boosts the patient’s confidence and makes them feel better about themselves. But if plastic surgery wasn’t even an option, then more people would be happy with their appearance and could focus on more important things.
For one thing, it is ridiculous to decide that getting liposuction is worth the risk of dying. In the Los Angeles Times article, it stated that deaths could be as high as 10- 20 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This is just simply not worth the risk.
Also, since 1997, the amount of cosmetic surgeries has increased 250%, according to American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Children grow up watching their super star role models get plastic surgery, so when they are able, they think they aren’t pretty or special without having every “flaw” fixed. The standards for appearances are so high that many girls have to resort to surgery to make them feel accepted!
Another example of encouraging plastic surgery is the show Bridalplasty. In the show, 12 brides compete to win challenges, and for each win, they get one plastic surgery procedure from their wish list. The winner has all of her wishlist procedures done, and her fiance doesn’t see the bride post procedures until the wedding day..This shows the worst of both plastic surgery and reality tv.
Finally, nearly 500 million dollars was spent last year on laser hair removal alone. That money could be used to pay off some of our country’s debt or it could go into important government programs such as education. Americans need to get their priorities straight.
Plastic surgery should be banned, it is a waste of money, sends a horrible message to children, and can cost lives.
To the Editor:
DeleteI agree with you on the fact that plastic surgery is not helpful and can be destructive as an example to children. People should accept who they are and embrace your flaws, because without them, you are no longer unique. Plastic surgery can cause more hurt than help, as it allows the patient to accept that they aren't good enough and need to be "fixed." They become reliant on the image of what they should look like, or what they are missing, instead of focusing on the positive characteristics they obtain.
Though your article is agreeable, I must bring up some a points which you neglected to recognize. Many victims to devastating injuries use reconstructive plastic surgery as a way to repair what has been damaged and put their lives back on the right track. Also, whether or not another person changes their body in ways you may not agree with, does not affect your life. I definitely do not condone nor agree with ideas of changing your appearance through plastic surgery, but people have the right to make their own decisions as long as it does not harm others or is absolutely harmful to the patient.
From Classy to Flashy: Miley Cyrus takes a turn for the worst
ReplyDeleteBy Celia Golod
The video opens with a raging Miley getting ready for what seems like a big party. Next thing you know she is “twerk”ing with four other women and acting in a very sexual manner. Not something her seven to ten year old fans should be watching.
Miley Cyrus’s career won’t stop. Like her most recent hit she’s taking a crazy ride on a rabid wrecking ball she steered right slamming into the iTunes top 100 however rebounded crashing into a hard wall of respect. These acts are inappropriate and not something a young “Hannah Montana” fan should see.
Despite this Cyrus is now into her twenties and can make her own decisions. However is it necessary to got to this extreme? Miley supporters claim that she is “God” but someone who behaves like Cyrus shouldn’t be hailed for her ludicrous acts.
“I don’t ever really plan to offend people, but sometimes that happens because people, they’re not open to what they don’t understand,” Miley said to Matt Lauer in an interview “my fans that are younger understand.”
Do her younger fans really understand? Twerking around on stage is really relatable Miley. 74.4% of people said on the latest billboards poll that they were “so offended” about her latest VMA’s performance. So clearly not enough of her “younger” fans understand.
Another person who came out bashing Miley after her latest performance is dwarf background dancer Jane Hollis. “I felt like a prop,” Hollis said “I want to be taken seriously.” Hollis was one of many dwarfs used in the VMA performance.
All of this backlash you’d think would make Cyrus consider changing her actions. But as stated before “she won’t stop” and is trying to make that clear with the release of her album “Bangerz”.
“Bangerz” is sure to stir up more negative comments; However, Miley seems ecstatic about the release.
If Cyrus doesn’t get her act together soon young children everywhere might try to impersonate her ways. Next thing we know there will be insane naked kids on every wrecking ball in the nation.
To The Editor:
DeleteWhile I believe your article regarding Miley Cyrus was very accurate, I feel as if you are completely misunderstanding Miley’s intentions. She is not trying to hold on to her young viewers but instead, she wishes to address a new demographic of one more similar to her own age. She said herself in an interview, "I'm not saying you need to take a break because you're crazy. I'm saying you need to take a break so you can be crazy, and people aren't going to judge you.”. Similarly to most twenty year olds, Miley is figuring out who she wants to be as a person and what she likes and doesn’t like. The only difference here is that Miley has millions of people watching her.
Execute the Death Penalty
ReplyDeleteBy Natasha Ladhani
For every eight people executed on account of capital punishment, one of them is innocent. This statistic is one of the reasons why in the past 13 years, the legislative branch has been struggling with the issue of repealing the death penalty. As a nation, we have dealt with the constant battle between morality and law.
Capital punishment not only provides too much power in the government, but also can be considered unconstitutional and immoral. As a country we must notice that taking away someone’s life is not the best way to punish crime.
There must be some sort of punishment for extreme crimes that differentiates itself from other minor crimes. Former constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein said, “Communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.” Fein supports the death penalty to ensure a consequence for what he considers wrong actions.
The many arguments against the death penalty range across from moral, religious and constitutional backgrounds.
When the option to repeal the death penalty was on the senate floor, many senators mentioned their state’s constitution as part of their argument. Part 1, Article 18 of the New Hampshire constitution states that punishment should reform, not “exterminate” mankind. This suggests the convicts should be taught to change their actions, not just eliminate them completely.
ProCon.org, a website dedicated to informing the public about the pros and cons of the death penalty claims that “almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral”. If the United States claim to have freedom of religion, why do they force the country to ignore its own faith based values?
Also on ProCon.org, a professor of law at New York University said, “Ultimately, the moral question surrounding capital punishment in America has less to do with whether those convicted of violent crime deserve to die than with whether state and federal governments deserve to kill those whom it has imprisoned.” This professor points out whether or not it is okay for the government to have the say over a persons life and whether or not that is too much power.
At the end of the day, we the people must decide where we stand on issues such as this and decide if it is really in our hands to take a life away.
To the editor: I am glad that people are starting to realize our conflicting laws. Why should religion go against execution and our country allow freedom or religion, yet not follow these beliefs? I am glad that your article is out there and people can see how important it is to resolve this topic. I agree with the argument stated and I hope that in years to come the government will abolish this law.~Celia Better Golod
DeleteNext time I would work on using less repetition and finding another source. By using pro.com for two pieces of evidence it made it seem like you could have done more research.
DeleteAlthough I agree with your argument by having a death penalty it threatens those who might wish to commit one of these acts. By having a death penalty it might cause one to no longer want to commit these crimes.
DeleteEditorial on Standardized Testing
ReplyDeleteBy: Caterina Baffa
Did you know that Finland, a nation with consistently well ranked education, has “no external standardized tests used to rank students or schools”?
The United States of America should look to this strategy as an example of an effective educational strategy. Standardized testing is an unsuccessful and unnecessary way of assessing children and young adults’ knowledge.
The Center of Education Policy released a study in 2007 that showed time spent on subjects such as social studies and science decreased about 145 minutes a week in 44% of school districts, to make more time for reading and math, the subjects seen of standardized test. Though some of the subjects and ideas seen on these tests can be valuable in the future, they are limiting the education of students and lowering their creative thinking, which is needed to be successful later in life.
The cost of standardized tests is ridiculously high, and comes from taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers in Texas paid around $88 million dollars on standardized tests from 2009 to 2012, according to the Texas Education Agency. Testing is a billion dollar business and is known to frequently make costly grading mistakes.
For all the money being put into standardized tests, there is not yet any evidence for how they have a positive effect students’ education and school progress. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, from 2001 to 2009, the United States went down from 18th to 31st place in international ranking in math, a significant drop for such a leading, powerful nation.
Standardized tests are pointless, without any great benefits to the education of the next generation. If anything, it is holding students back.
Dear editor Baffa,
DeleteYour opinion almost changed my perspective. Spending $88 million on these tests is a startling fact, and is a waste of money. However, I would like to know your alternative to standardized tests, because aren’t they needed to make sure students are learning what they are suppose to? Also, I am confused on what the point behind the U.S’s dropped ranking was. If these tests are pointless, then why does it matter what the ranking was?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlastic is not fantastic by Nathan Chiu
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s obsession over beauty continues to increase without bounds. According to the National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery, Americans spent 11.5 billion dollars to perform 11 million cosmetic procedures in 2006.
While innovative technological advances have made maintaining one’s youthful appearance a reality, any plastic or cosmetic-related surgical procedure is impractical, expensive, and dangerous.
Although cosmetic procedures can offer a younger, more “attractive” appearance, the physical and psychological detriments of this surgery outweigh these benefits. Advocates of plastic surgery claim that plastic surgery can boost a patient’s self-esteem by correcting a bodily flaw. However, plastic surgery is not the best solution to improving one’s psychological wellbeing since plenty of equally effective alternatives to plastic surgery exist for dealing with unsatisfactory appearance.
As with any other surgical procedure, cosmetic surgery involves the risk of severe health complications. Patients can potentially experience the loss of sensation after undergoing cosmetic surgery. According to Dr. Nahai, President of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, cosmetic surgery patients undergo a 70% risk of experiencing damage in the nerves of the operated body parts.
Similarly, cosmetic surgery is only a temporary solution to an emotional issue. People who are insecure about their appearance shouldn’t receive cosmetic surgery because it only ameliorates the issue. A patient may experience temporary satisfaction with their body following their plastic surgery, but often this surgery fails to address the root psychological issues, resulting in extensive long term impairment.
According to a social experiment conducted by NOVA (Norwegian Social Research), symptoms of depression and anxiety [odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.57] and a history of deliberate self-harm (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.46-5.68), parasuicide (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.53-7.08) and illicit drug use (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.07-5.82) predicted prospective cosmetic surgery. Moreover, those who underwent surgery during the course of the study experienced a greater increase than other females in symptoms of depression and anxiety (t=2.07, p=0.04) and eating problems (t=2.71, p<0.01).
Furthermore, cosmetic surgery has the potential to exacerbate emotional distress, resulting in permanent psychological scars. According to ADDA (American and Depression Association of America), BDD disorder, more commonly known as body dysmorphic disorder can result from repeatedly going through plastic surgery. People who possess this disorder can never be satisfied with their own appearance, repeatedly undergoing cosmetic surgery and experiencing extensive damage to the nervous system.
Finally, cosmetic surgery is impractical. Plastic modifications to the body are highly conspicuous, defeating the purpose of undergoing plastic surgery. “I can always tell when people have plastic surgery” Sheryl Crow, an American singer, said.
In spite of the corrections to bodily flaws produced by cosmetic surgery, these unnatural modifications are highly noticeable and risky, both to the psychological and physical wellbeing of the patient. Thus, avoiding plastic surgery is the best course of action to take. If absolutely necessary, one should take precautions and consult a certified psychiatrist and cosmetic surgeon before doing cosmetic surgery.
To the Editor(Nathan)
DeleteI commend you on your well written article taking a necessary stance against plastic surgery. You bring up some excellent points that I too have wondered before- What's the point of trying to make yourself prettier (and probably more likable) if you will only be criticized for it? You added an interesting point that people use plastic surgery to cover up some more pressing emotional issues they are trying to hide. This was a great point that I haven't heard before in arguments against plastic surgery so it provoked a lot of new thoughts and ideas.
Additionally, I heard something about plastic surgery gone wrong, in which case anesthesia did not work and the patient was able to fell everything without being able to do anything to let the doctor know they were in severe pain. I thought your arguments were very good on their own, I just thought that may be an interesting point to include.
Putting Homework to the Test
ReplyDeleteBy Olivia Gieger
15% of students seriously consider committing suiccides11% reported creating a plan, and 7% attempted to kill them self.
High school students deal with so much pressure to succeed in school and unnecessary homework just adds to the stress. While some assignments are important and would be wasteful to be done in class, for example reading and writing an analytical paragraph, some assignments feel like busywork. Which is just a waste of precious time in a high-schooler’s busy schedule.
Cory Ames, a teacher and a writer for Scientific Learnings says, “Sometimes, I feel as if I have been doing homework my entire life.”
This is another problem parents have with the excessive amounts of homework, they feel as though their children will grow up with childhood memories of only spending hours on homework.
The Maine Department of Education conducted interviews with high school dropouts and there is a striking trend, for most the final straw was just too much homework.
Professors at the Curry School of Education at UVA conducted a search, looking at transcripts and data from over 18,000 tenth graders and results show that homework doesn’t help improve grades. Students received the same scores with the homework as they did without the extra work.
Robert Tai, associate professor at UVA said with homework “There is a bit of a sweet spot,” especially when it comes to math, just enough helps give students enough practice but too much just over works them and is unnecessary.
It is important to go back to the original reason why homework was instituted in the first place- to develop a genuine love for learning and thinking minds for the future, but with homework wearing kids down, that devotion to learning is lost.
Your article (Putting Homework to the Test, 10/25/13) emphasizes on the point of how unnecessary homework adds to student's stress. I'd like to agree with this and include that too much homework for students limits the amount of leisure one receives and extracurricular activities. Like sports and instruments, activities outside of school are important to a student's life. Homework limits this.
DeleteFurthermore, I believe you should make a concession to the other side. Many people believe that homework has a lot of value to it. You could definitely strengthen your argument by proving that the arguments from the pro-homework side is wrong. For example, one may say that homework helps absorb all the information in class. You could rebut this by saying that many people cheat in homework to avoid stress. Therefore, homework does little to help students learn more.
Editorial for Violent Video Games
ReplyDeleteBy: Ethan Chiu
The Pew Research Center stated in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content-Harvard Health Publications.
Video games are a common distraction for children and are influencing more to violence. According on the American Psychiatric Association, “Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts.” Therefore, violent video games must be banned.
Some may say that violent video games do not directly correspond with people’s actions in the public eye. GTA 5 or Call of Duty may seem fun to many, but it gives ridiculous ideas to children. Bill Clinton stated, “‘Mortal Kombat,’ ‘Killer Instinct,’ and ‘Doom’...make our children more active participants in simulated violence.”
Violent video games like GTA 5 allow people to do crimes that you would never do in public like beating up people randomly. Based on a study conducted by Gentile & Anderson in 2003, “Playing video games may increase aggressive behavior because violent acts are continually repeated throughout the video game”.
Also, another violent video games like Call of Duty offers promotions for kills or missions. This shows people the devaluation of life. Killing that person portrayed on the tv screen does not bring any meaning for the person playing the video game.
State Senator Leland Yee wrote in 2009, “With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior.”
Furthermore, death does not affect a person from a video game standpoint. When playing a violent video game, the player does not realize the value of life. Taking one’s life does not go through that player’s mind.
According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “Children and adolescents can become overly involved and even obsessed with videogames. Spending large amounts of time playing these games can create problems and lead to... aggressive thoughts and behaviors.”
The video game companies should limit violent video games for only people older than 17. I believe that people younger than 17 are not mature enough and will be negatively influenced by these awful video games. Sadly the majority of youth are playing violent video games.
Your article argues that violent video games leads to actual violence. I would like to echo these sentiments. Video games these day do contain an excessive amount of violence and gore. Exposing young children to such violence is never good, since they may actually perform these violent deeds in reality. Thus, I agree with your statement that violent video games are a poor influence for young children. However I think limiting violent video games is an ineffective way of addressing this issue. Young children can still play M-rated games. And so, I believe that the best solution is to teach kids about violence and its consequences to prevent actual violence from occurring.
DeleteMore Adolescents Taking Virtual Over Reality
ReplyDeleteBy Colin Emerson
Children today seem to grow more and more reliant on the internet for social connection.Over 60% of children ages 13-17 have at least one social network profile, and many of the 60% spend at least two hours a day on social network websites.
Social networks are fun to a certain extent, but they turn into a waste of time when people depend on them for communication with others.
Sure social networks make communication convenient if people don’t have their phones or are simply more available on Facebook, but it’s a much better experience to have those exchanges in person. It is not too pleasing for parents to sit down at the dinner table and see their child(ren) with their faces engrossed in smart phones.
Kids need to learn self control using the social networking sites, and not check networks at such a consistent rate. According to MediaBistro, 23% of users check their Facebook account more than 5 times a day. Kids should not be so inclined to check social networks, because it takes away more interactions from people and makes them look antisocial(ironic).
Kids are also compelled to contribute to their profiles, for fear of not losing friends or followers. MediaBistro says over 5 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day. Kids not only consistently check profiles, but feel the need to use it on a regular basis.
Social networks are becoming entwined with common life as well. According to SocialMediaToday, 87% of all Americans know about Facebook and Twitter. People who do not know about social networks have now become part of a minority to an extent where it would be considered strange not to know of either two social networks.
Although social networks are useful for convenient communication, they should not be overused or in place of communication with people in person, because then they becomes a waste of time. Social networks are not important or productive enough for kids to spend the time they do online.
Let’s start reading again :). Because that definitely won’t work, maybe kids could try getting more involved in after school activities or sports. This way, kids will be able to interact with others in person much more, and will not have the desire to spend so much time on social networks. If they devoted to more activities
If kids do not start to use social networking sites and technology in moderation, society will end up like the society in The Pedestrian by Ray Bradbury.
To the editor:
DeleteI am glad that someone can still see through the haze of all the social media these days. It is true that many youth of today spend too much time on social media, and I have witnessed many a time when kids are stuck on their phones checking Facebook or Twitter, sometimes so enthralled that they walk into fountains (viral video, anyone?). I would have liked to see you talk about some of the more detrimental effects of social media, other that just lack of social skills. Issues like cyber bullying, stalking, and distraction from academics seem to have escaped you critique.
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Odyssey Dawn, and Operation Restore Hope: these glorious names all given these ventures into foreign lands. But were these foreign interventions worth it? Should they continue?
ReplyDeleteHumanitarian interventions, and operations vital to U.S. national security are definitely necessary in some situations.
Arguments against foreign interventions cross a broad range of topics, mostly concerning the idea of “nation building.” This usually refers to the forceful ouster of the ruling regime in a country, and replacing it with a new democratic government.
A report by The Independent Institute, a libertarian think-tank, published a report describing much of its reasoning for why America should not pursue a policy of global interventionism. They contend democratic nation building results in the creation of weak puppet governments that soon give way to the very sort of dictatorships that were toppled originally. Furthermore, they argue that U.S. wars in the Middle East have increased anti-American sentiment, making these efforts entirely counter-productive.
“Nation building” aside, however, multilateral interventions remain necessary to ensure national security, as well as provide humanitarian relief.
In 2001, the U.S. began Operation Enduring Freedom, better known as the War on Terror. This operation toppled the Taliban government, who had been ruling Afghanistan and had condoned the presence of terrorists who orchestrated the September 11th attacks. Now, twelve years later, Afghanistan is still a country plagued by war and insurgency. However, the local government is democratically elected, and Afghan security forces continue to grow in strength and capability as they are trained by international forces. These local security forces will carry on the fight against terrorism inside the country. The mission - eliminating a regime promoting terrorism - has been largely successful.
The 2011 intervention in Libya was another example of a successful international operation. The U.S. Air Force, along with forces from many NATO countries, enforced a no-fly zone over Libya and carried out airstrikes against the Libyan military. With the help of this operation, Libyan rebel forces successfully overthrew the oppressive and cruel government of Muammar Gaddafi, which had been oppressing citizens fighting for freedom. Today, Libya is rebuilding itself under a democratically elected government.
U.S. participation in bombing campaigns for humanitarian reasons in Bosnia was another example of important interventions. NATO forces conducted strikes on the Serbian Army, which had been committing heinous war crimes against Muslim Bosnians. The Bosnian Intervention was important in stopping genocide. Had the U.S. and NATO not intervened, the genocide would have continued on unstopped. America has a responsibility to intervene in humanitarian crises, as does any other capable nation. We cannot stand by when militaries slaughter innocent civilians.
This is not to say that America should use military force just to serve our interests or “nation build.” But when we are threatened by terrorists, or when humanitarian action is sanctioned, we must act. Using or military cautiously, we must make sure our nation is protected, and that great injustices in our world are stopped.
Title: Cautious Operations
DeleteTo the editor:
DeleteI agree with you on so many levels about humanitarian intervention being vital to national security in some situations. When a country feels threatened especially after a horrific event such as 9/11, I don't disagree with invading the country the organization that was responsible for 9/11 originated in, and search for the organization. Your article (Keenan Ashbrook October 29th, 2013 at 10:59 AM) gives several examples of successful international operations, which ended in country's being free from their oppressors. I think it is important for other countries to experience freedom from corrupt governments, and it is the duty of wealthier countries to aid them in reaching that kind of freedom. However, the founding fathers (particularly George Washington in his farewell address) warned against intervening in international affairs. It can be economically costly to help other countries before making sure our own is stable. One matter that can be attributed to the United States' immense debt is the nonstop wars the U.S. has been in for the last ten years. We do need to help other countries in need, but we should try to solve our own problems instead of the problems of other countries. This way, we can improve the world without having our own economy deteriorate.
I'm not competent enough to reply to your editorial.
ReplyDelete