tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49662234309388842002024-03-18T00:15:15.257-07:00 Baby GargantuaGiants to the Right of Me, Dragons to the Left of Me. Everyone Has an Opinion.
You Be the Judge.Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-52020140636890238072017-03-26T20:54:00.002-07:002017-05-24T10:20:26.704-07:00Tricameral LegislatureJust musing from my ivory tower. Just musing on the current political climate. Just musing, just musing, neither right nor left because I never discuss politics in public or on blogs. Just musing. <br /><br />
Here's an idea. Why not have three houses of the legislative branch?<br /><br />
Why not have a legislative house for the rest of us? Call it the Humble House. Its members will be called Humble Persons.
<br /><br />
Humble Person: an elected official that represents the average Joe or Jane (You figure out the legalese). <br /><br />
Qualifications: A Humble Person shall have the same qualifications as a U.S. Representative, except that: the Humble Person must have attained the age of 35, have one or more dependent children living in the household with at least one between the ages of 2 and 17; and have an annual household income of no greater than 5 percent of the median income of the Humble Person's state. (You figure out the legalese). <br /><br />
Distribution: The number of Humble Persons representing each state shall be determined based upon a formula: 1 half of 1 percent of the total number of middle class U.S. citizens residing in that state; furthermore, there shall be no fewer than 3 and no greater than 10 Humble Persons representing each state; and at least one of the Humble Persons from each state must have an annual income that is at or below the poverty level.(You figure out the legalese). <br /><br />
Powers: All bills concerning social issues passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives must also pass the Humble House before reaching the Chief Executive's desk. From time to time, the Humble House shall create a bill when it seems that the other two houses need direction on a particular issue. The Humble Persons shall partake in the approving of Supreme Court Justices and all presidential appointments. The Humble House shall have no input into matters of foreign policy, international trade, or war, except in cases where over 1 percent of people are subject to job loss or 1 percent of people under 21 are called up to fight (You figure out the legalese). <br /><br />
Salary: Current household income plus 5 Percent of their current household income. In addition, all household bills of the Humble Person shall be paid by the Government, not including healthcare, life insurance, income taxes, or college tuition and fees. All travel and other expenses associated with the Humble House shall be paid for by the government. This salary comes with no annual raise. All Humble Persons are encouraged to remain in the real world. (You figure out the legalese). <br /><br />
Term: 4 years. Election period shall coincide with Presidential elections so that the Humble House Representatives shall be attached to a particular President. <br /><br />
Just musing.<br /><br />
But seriously. <br /><br />
We have the Senate, and all Senators are smart and good people, but ALL Senators are so far removed from the rest of us living in the real world. <br /><br />
We have the House of Representatives, and all Representatives are smart and good people, but ALL Representatives are far removed from the rest of us living in the real world.<br /><br />
Ask a senator: “How much does a gallon of milk cost?” Watch what happens. <br /><br />
Every single member of the U.S. Legislature is a good person, but All of them, All of them, ALL of them are so out of touch with the American people. We elect them to represent us, and they do so to the best of their abilities, but how can they do that with even the slightest modicum of success? <br /><br />
How can they represent us if they aren’t like us? <br /><br /> How can they represent us if they don't know us? <br /><br /> How can they represent us if they can't feel what we feel? <br /><br />
The America government is a government of the people for the people by the people. So where are the people in government?<br /><br />
In the Humble House. <br /><br />
Just musing.Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-4676434802936003842016-05-23T11:15:00.005-07:002016-05-23T11:24:41.578-07:00Dennis, starring Kim KoldOf Mice and Elephants <br /><br />
Preston L. Allen <br /><br /><br /><br />
The film, DENNIS, demonstrates to an extreme and absurd extent the results of a domineering parent on an adult child. The shrewish mother controls the protagonist Dennis by making him feel guilty and dependent on her when in fact it is she who is dependent on him. She is lonely, it seems, because she has no male companion. Early in the film, Dennis shyly tells her, “I’m going to the movies with Peter.” This is not true. He is actually going on a date with a girl Peter has set him up with, but he must lie rather than tell his mother he is going out with a girl. The lie he tells is shown to us as a fib, a “naughty” little boy’s way of deceiving. You can’t see his hands the way the scene is shot, but you can imagine his fingers crossed as he fibs. His mother responds by saying, “It’s okay for you to stand people up like that.” We can see the result this has on the hulking Dennis now completely immersed in the role of the “little boy” who has disappointed his mom with his “sneaky,” dishonest behavior. To make up for is misdeed, he hangs his head guiltily and volunteers to put away the groceries—one of his “duties” she reminds him. In their cramped tiny kitchen, it’s hard to miss that he towers over her--she looks tiny and frail beneath him. If he doesn’t move out of the way, she cannot pass to go into her room—but move out of the way he does. The contrast in their size in this scene is emphasized by the camera angles, and it is important as the director wants to illustrate that a mother of this type can take away the manhood of even someone as physically imposing as this bodybuilder. And thus the mouse controls the elephant much to our surprise and amazement. <br /><br />
This emasculating due to guilt extends beyond the home as is demonstrated by his awkwardness in social situations in general, but especially around members of the opposite sex. Not only does he shrink before his little mouse of a mother, but he is now exposed to other little mice who can sense his condition and victimize him further. This is illustrated quite effectively in the scenes in the restaurant and at the party. At the restaurant he is a disappointment in the eyes of his date, Patricia, because he drinks Coca Cola rather than alcohol, an adult’s beverage. “I’m in training,” he lies. (It is because his mother scolds him when he drinks we will learn in a later scene.) Also there is a noticeable smirk on his date’s face when he tells another transparent fib when asked if he lives alone. “Yes,” he tells her, averting his eyes. You can see in her face that she doubts his words and is debating whether to call his bluff by asking to go home with this enormous “little child man” for a night of “adult” activities. How amusing that would’ve been. <br /><br />
Instead she invites him to a party and he agrees to go, but first he must take the padlock off his bike—his mode of transportation in a country concerned about the environment? Perhaps. In this film, however, it is just one more framing of him as a child—a giant on a child’s mode of transportation. In the scene at the party, he is made to undress and dance by three more little mice for their amusement. When the “real” adult males appear, they are little mice too compared to him in size, but like all mice they sense his weakness and victimize him as well by laughing derisively at him calling him a “lump.” (Of cheese?) No wonder the giant flees down the stairs and out of the apartment. <br /><br />
Finally, the giant “little boy” cannot take any more of this abuse and returns home. He has tried to escape his mom by running away and it hasn’t worked. The world outside his cage is too dangerous and so he returns to the only place where he feels safe. Now he is so humbled by shame and guilt that he cannot face her, but he must take her scolding if he is to regain her protection. She asks him how the movie was, knowing full well he did not go there. Had he gone there, would his shirt be inside out? She observes too that he has been drinking—he is becoming more like his father, an alcoholic (but perhaps a real man?) She goes to bed, leaving the child thoroughly chastised by her insinuations. Wracked with guilt, he goes into his bedroom, takes off his shirt, again revealing his massive physique, but after a while we see him in her room where he asks timidly, “Can I sleep with you?” What does he mean by that? No, this is not incest, but much worse. The mouse says, “Yes, you may,” rolls over, and pulls back the sheet. And the elephant climbs in—so much like a mom and her giant “little” boy, lying safe beside her.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-76189553478341711622015-10-22T12:05:00.004-07:002015-10-22T12:13:45.500-07:00Inter-Nuts
What happens when someone on the internet makes threats but no form of authority is there to take action? And what happens when someone from the federal government takes too much action and the other person’s privacy has been violated. The issue of whether or not government should be allowed to regulate information on the internet has been very controversial. However, the federal government should absolutely be permitted to regulate information on the internet on the internet while adhering to very strict guidelines and rules. <br /><br />
Every day, people are surfing the web, whether it be school related, a personal question, or even shopping. There are millions of websites out there, some being immensely dangerous or inappropriate. Allowing the federal government to regulate information on the internet will provide an effective way of either halting the behavior or further monitoring to ensure that nothing suspicious has been occurring on the website. In doing so, websites that target children for the benefit of child molesters can be taken down immediately and the appropriate consequences will be given. There are so many websites that either post inappropriate things or lure certain groups of people to them. A recent study showed that 79 percent of Americans believe that the government should do something about the issue of dangerous strangers making contact with children. This same study showed that 62 percent of Americans agree that government should be involved when regarding false advertising (Blendon, Benson, Altman, Rosenbaum, Flournoy, Kim 47). The truth is, the web surfer cannot be certain of who is behind that false advertisement. It could be simply harmless or it could result in the stealing of someone’s identity. <br /><br />
Surprisingly, more Americans are worried that the government will not involve itself enough in the issue of pornography rather than the possibility of the government involving itself too much in other issues. As Americans, we give up some rights to receive protection but how much of our privacy are we giving away when the government is allowed to regulate the internet? Although it can be very beneficial, the reality is that there are also many negative factors. For instance, as unfortunate as it is, there are corrupt officials that may take advantage of this opportunity. This is where the issue of boundaries and guidelines come in to play because without them, the allowance of regulation could get out of hand. Even if it is not intentional, officials may take things too far and violate someone’s privacy. There needs to be rules put in place to limit the amount of perusing that the government does through people’s private things. Another way to prevent the government from getting away with looking through personal information that is out of bounds is to notify the person that their things have been looked through (Stanton).<br /><br />
Another beneficial aspect of having the government regulate the internet is that they would be able to catch criminals by monitoring certain websites. In particular, there was a case where officers put a fake advertisement on the internet to target men who were suspected of prostitution. They received several hits and proceeded to monitoring the website over time. This allowed them to catch multiple people who asked for the price of specific sexual acts (BRIEF). Allowing government to monitor websites like this is beneficial in the regard that it is easier and more efficient to catch people committing illegal acts. <br /><br />
In retrospect, allowing the government to regulate the internet is very rewarding if they adhere to the guidelines. Many cases have proven that it has saved lives and caught criminals. However, it has also violated the privacy of innocent people. Therefore, guidelines should be put in place in order to prevent the government from crossing boundaries that they should not be crossing. As long as these strict rules are followed, then regulation of the internet should be enacted and performed.
<br /><br />
Works Cited
Blendon, Robert, et. al. "Whom to Protect and How? The Public, the Government, and the Internet Revolution?" The Brookings Review, 2001. Print.<br /><br />
Stanton, Lynn. "Government seen as 'bully pulpit' for data privacy, internet of things." Cybersecurity Policy Report 24 Aug. 2015. General OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.<br /><br />
"BRIEF: Simi Valley police use phony online ad to catch men seeking sex." Ventura County Star [Ventura, CA] 19 Dec. 2012. General OneFile. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.
(MDC student M. Hernandez)
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-68663201734122312332015-10-22T12:01:00.004-07:002015-10-22T12:06:04.846-07:00Was It Good for You?
Should certain kinds of ads be banned in the interest of health/morality/annoyance for example, alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription meds? Yes I have to agree 100% percent. There are a lot of things on T.V I would not want my daughter to see. A thirty second or one minute clip can change her whole life and mind forever. For example the new M&M’s commercial is very offensive to me as a mom. If you haven’t seen it, just imagine the brown M&M in bed with its shirt off next to a half naked woman, whose husband surprises her. What’s up with that?
<br /><br />
I would not want my daughter to think its okay to sleep in the bed under the sheet’s with a candy perhaps, in a sexual way. I’d take that very offensive if she thoughts that way acceptable. Also, I would like to keep cigarettes ads off the TV. As of now they have commercials running daily about people that shouldn’t be smoking, good advertising but can go about it a different way. I know that these ads are designed to keep people from smoking rather than encouraging it, but someone shouldn’t have to peel off their face to get the point across that smoking can cause skin cancer and other problems. This one’s heart is in the right place, perhaps, but it takes it to the point of annoyance.
<br /><br />
I believe there are a lot of commercials that should banned from the internet. For example, you would never see an abortion commercial on TV, simply because it’s not a friendly conversational topic that everyone wants to see. The point I’m trying to make is that, women and some men still know without the ads and commercials exactly where to get a safe abortion if needed, or do they? I think it’s common sense, but maybe not. Nevertheless, it is an annoying ad and certainly offensive to many religious groups.
<br /><br />
(An excerpt from MDC student J. Holt)Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-86367032024727004122015-10-22T11:47:00.000-07:002015-10-22T12:02:15.175-07:00Clean TV<br /><br />
Advertising is one aspect of marketing that has taken control of all types of media. Whether one is simply watching television reading a magazine, a seemingly large percentage is allotted to ads. I believe that certain ads should be banned from established media, such as television and online videos. Advertisement is intended for influential audiences, they may promote dangers, and are ultimately irritating. <br /><br />
The vast majority of people who watch television programs or online videos are children and young adults. These audiences are easily manipulated. With that being said, Children along with teens can learn foul language and behaviors from commercials because they are at an age that they absorb everything like sponges. For example, there is a hot sauce commercial whose slogan is “Franks Red Hot, I put that (censored word) on everything”. Anyone over the age of 7 clearly knows that the word being bleeped is shit, and because it’s on-air children can mistake it for normal expression. Young adults, who are no longer under the watchful supervision of their parents, can go ahead and buy the “brand-new, state of the art, limited edition” electronic cigarette and pick up the nasty habit of smoking tobacco along with it, even though it is being advertised to help smokers quit. One study found that “youth exposure to electronic cigarette advertisements on television increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period” (RTI International). Alcohol is another advertised product that can cause health, social and legal problems. “Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people younger than 25; alcohol is a factor in those accidents more than 40 percent of the time” (Feldman). Even though alcohol can cause said problems they seem to be in every other sequence of commercial time. These audiences are being absent-mindedly controlled by unnecessary garbage called propaganda.<br /><br />
Since these audiences are so easily tricked into believing what they’re seeing, dangerous aspects of commercials are perceived as cool and acceptable. Many commercials such as those with cars cruising at high speeds, or people doing “adventurous things” like rock climbing, BMX biking, or skateboarding can make impressionable people replicate said acts. For instance there is a Nike commercial where the protagonist is showing off the newest in footwear while traveling through the city doing parkour, an invigorating yet extremely difficult and dangerous sport. A 12 year old is then put into an arm brace for falling off a concrete bench trying to reenact said commercial. This is just one example of the many cases hospitals receive of child injury after propaganda reenactment. A commercial in which a Jeep is taken off-roading and mudding through traitorous terrain is then simulated by a high school senior, who then not only gets stuck mudding but brakes the axel of the front wheels of his father’s car. The senior doesn’t only face the cost of the car repair but also has to recover from the bruises left behind by the “adventure”.
<br /><br />Lastly, commercials are simply annoying. How many times does one attempt to watch a video on YouTube and get interrupted halfway through the video? We are sometimes forced to watch ads in order to then access the content intended on watching. Not only are we forced to watch the annoying ads, but advertisement is redundant. How many different beer commercials are aired within an hour of t.v time? How many of these commercials are about drinking the beer on a beach, at a party, with friends? All of them! Television stations do not only play commercials in sequence but there are some which repeat the same exact commercial twice in one sequence. And this can really frustrate those who can care less if charmin ultra-soft is tougher than the leading brand but softer than a baby duck.
<br /><br />Some may say that propaganda is necessary for product sales or business awareness. Others, like Chris Moerdyk, will say that even if we ban advertisement the issue of dangers will still prevail and “the only result will be the loss of thousands of jobs in the media, advertising and marketing industries.” Even though people will lose jobs in the marketing industry, if commercials and certain advertisement is banned the generations that drool over while watching t.v will not be brainwashed into buying unnecessary things or acting out like paid stunt professionals in commercials. Not only will they be less likely to act out but those of us who can care less about pointless propaganda won’t have to be forced into watching it.
<br /><br />(M. Martinez MDC student)
<br /><br />
Works Cited
<br /><br />
Feldman, Richard. "Alcohol Ads Target Youth at High Price." Indianapolis Star. Indianapolis, 16 Jun. 2015: A.11. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. <br /><br />
Moerdyk, Chris. "Government on Ad-Banning Roll." AllAfrica.com. 13 Nov. 2014. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
<br /><br />
RTI International. "Adolescent Exposure to E-Cigarette TV Ads Increases Likelihood of..." Pediatrics. Washington D.C, Targeted News Service. 07 Jul. 2015. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 04 Oct. 2015.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-45970545994091778342015-10-22T10:17:00.002-07:002015-10-22T10:55:35.715-07:00Sexual Orientation"Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex" (wikipedia). It also refers to the way in which a person views himself/herself based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership amongst a group of others who share the same attractions. Homosexual behavior has even been documented and observed in many non-human animal species.There are not any theories about why an individual develops a particular sexual orientation; many scientists think that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences factor into the equation. Many homosexual/lesbian people are in committed relationships. These relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in principal psychological respects. These relationships have two things they don't share with heterosexual relationships. The first is the historic disapproval/persecution they have faced. The second is children. If you add these two things together--disapproval/persecution and children--through legislation, what do you get? Disapproval/persecution in a home with children. No. We don't want that. But things are getting better. These days disapproval/persecution of same sex relationships is gradually disappearing. One day it shall disappear completely, and when it does, we won't need government intervention to allow same-sex adoption. Some of you may still not want that, but it won't hurt the children. Let's pray that that great day comes soon, for you are the problem, not the child, and not the same sex couple that wants to adopt the child.
(MDC student) Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-69382415214987148182015-10-22T10:15:00.002-07:002015-10-22T10:18:10.985-07:00Same Sex AdoptionOn June 26 of 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the right for same sex couples to marry in all 50 states. From 1996 to 2013, in defiance of this law 15 states in the U.S. prohibited same sex couples from legally getting married. A strongly controversial issue that has risen is the idea of adoption for these newly privileged-to-marry couples. Although the right has been around for years for opposite-sex couples that aren't able to conceive a child by natural means, it has been denied same-sex couples on the grounds that if you can't conceive by natural means you can't adopt. Many children in the U.S. are currently orphaned. They remain the the foster care system until they turn 18, whereupon they get thrown. These unfortunates had no parents as children and now they have no parents of family as adults. The foster care system is overburdened, inefficient, and expensive. These children need parents and families. Same-sex couples are more than willing to take them in. It's not like gay parents raising children is a new idea. Many mothers and fathers of children biologically are gay, even though they may be undercover. Furthermore, two women raising children is not new. Mothers and live-in grandmothers (or live-in aunts) have been doing it for years with no cry of "women with no men should not be raising boys." The only difference that I can see is that love from "mother and grandmother" would be replaced by love from "mother and co-mother."
(M.Gomez MDC student) Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-61774127830993639482013-09-19T07:18:00.000-07:002015-10-22T11:15:11.187-07:00Cyberbullying Is Way Overblown
Cyber bullying is a problem many children and teenagers have to face daily at school away from their parents supervision and protection. Cyber bullying means harassing another person online by sending or posting on some websites mean comments or messages, sometimes being anonymous. It can threaten another person and it can hurt their feelings, and even making fun of who they are. Cyber bullying is done by electronic devices, such as phones, computers, and etc. It could be on social media sites, by text messages, chat, or even websites. With the rise of social media, cyber bulling has taken on a whole new look. The top two social Medias that are often used for cyber bulling are facebook and twitter. The cyber bulling can take place publicly or by sending a private message. Embarrassing pictures can be posted and tagged with the name of the person being bullied. As well as posting comments to spread gossip and rumors.
<br /><br />
The technology is not the problem as much as the immaturity of the user, the kids who commit suicide over cyber bullying are already dealing with emotional depression at home, and get on social sites to feel accepted from others but not to get humiliated by people, they feel as if they have nothing else to live for and embarrassed when they get mistreated on social sites where over millions of people are logged on to. Most of the time they are getting cyber bullied by people that are close to them. Do you think it that simple to stop cyber bullying?
<br /><br />
A simple block on Facebook may seem simple but does that really stop a cyber-bully. A block does not always hold back a cyber-bully. Some cyber-bullies go through great lengths to make people feel pain. Cyber-bullying is a delicate situation that not all people can handle. A simple solution can be to block the cyber-bully but for some bullies it is merely an obstacle.
<br /><br />
(MDC: excerpt from a group paper: Group members: Cheila Gonzalez ,Alyssa Almeida, Jenny Mathieu, Tamicka Augustine, Guerda Desrakin, Jeff Faustin)
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-37771992995820828052013-09-19T07:08:00.001-07:002015-10-22T11:31:16.089-07:00Yes, Cyberbullying Does ExistIn today’s society the Internet is a major source of entertainment, news, research, and communication with websites being created to help improve sharing ideas with others. Like everything that is created, there is a positive use for it as well as a negative. In the case of the Internet, cyberbullying is one of its major dilemmas. Due to many people keeping quiet about the fact that they are being cyberbullied, not many suspect how dangerous it really is. Cyberbullying is a threat to a persons’ state of mind. Although many may not think it is a major issue, such as Agent Provocateur, cyberbullying can affect peoples’ personal and professional lives, can cause drastic decisions for life choices, and can sadly affect any age group.
<br /><br />
Cyberbullying is extremely common amongst celebrities. It is more common to see famous actors or musicians being cyberbullied than a normal, everyday person. Go onto almost any social media website or app and you’ll find hate profiles for different celebrities, parody accounts, and people posting hurtful comments to celebrities. Celebrities are constantly scrutinized by the public for what they wear, what they say, where they go, who they associate with, and what they do with their free time. In December, popular pop singer Lorde was attacked on social media along with her supposed boyfriend. Apparently Lorde commented on Justin Bieber and the members of One Direction (even though there is no actual evidence of her even mentioning these people). Because of this rumored comment, fans of One Direction and Justin Bieber took to twitter and began commenting on Lorde’s relationship and made racial comments about her supposed boyfriend. In order to fully understand the blow up, it must be said that her supposed boyfriend is of Asian descent. One of the comments made was by @craicdaddyniall saying “Damn lorde is a lucky girl I bet her boyfriend gives her free manicures and pedicures.”
<br /><br />
Are comments like that really necessary? Because somebody doesn’t agree with us, we find it adequate to bash the person, call them names, and hurt their feelings? We seem to be a generation that lack communication skills. Instead of actually telling others how we feel or if we dislike something, we hide behind a computer or cell phone screen. Comments hurt everybody. Even celebrities like Demi Lovato have been affected by cyberbullying. She took to twitter last year and said, “It really surprises me the hateful things people say on the internet.. After all the awareness of cyber-bullying... I mean wow. So sad.”, “Praying for all the people in the world who feel it's okay to bully people over the internet because if you are one of those people, then..”, “You must have had something really terrible happen to your childhood or you're really sick in the head. Must suck to be born without a heart”. Between the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011 she was admitted into a treatment facility for bulimia and self-injury due to cyberbullying. There is no need to post hurtful comments about anyone. Cyberbullying can affect anyone.
<br /><br />
The fact that some people say cyberbullying doesn’t exist is ludicrous. Someone who’s never been bullied would fall under the list of people who would agree with that statement. Bullying period is all around us; it can be seen at any time and any place because there are many ways to do it. To begin with, one out of every four kids is bullied in some way (Cambridge Educational). In one case, researchers found that cyberbullying was a risk factor in youth suicides. Once the data was put together, this is what the results were:
<br /><br />
“The study identified 41 suicide cases (24 female, 17 male, ages 13 to 18) from the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In the study, 24 percent of teens were the victims of homophobic bullying, including the 12 percent of teens identified as homosexual and another 12 percent of teens who were identified as heterosexual or of unknown sexual preference. Suicides most frequently occurred in September (15 percent) and January (12 percent) although these higher rates may have occurred by chance. The incidence of reported suicide cases increased over time, with 56 percent occurring from 2003 to 2010, compared to 44 percent from January 2011 through April 2012” (Mental Health Weekly Digest).
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
Cyber bulling like any other type of bullying affects teenagers due to the constant need to be socially accepted in the social networks. Establishing rules is important to avoid being bullied online, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Science explains that by sharing passcode’s can compromise the control over personal information online. Some parents encourage children to think before putting up anything that can be used to harm or embarrass them, others believe speaking in schools to prepare platforms for students to be informed about the risk cyber bullying have. The greatest argument is what else can be done some can reply that question just with a few tips like never meeting face to face with some that was met online or never send personal info. 30 % of students are involved in bullying and 42% said that they have been bullied while online. For object lesson, making certain to inform the youth of the necessity to be respectful with their privacy and security can help them avoid being harassed constantly for their thought or looks. Some important tips to avert it; refuse to pass along cyber-bullying messages, promote awareness of the cyber-bullying problem in your residential district by having an assembly and making flyers to give to younger children or parents, and tell friends or others closer to you to stop practicing cyber-bullying because it has substantial problems.
<br /><br />
(Excerpts from a Group Paper by MDC students: Anthony Lloret, Stacey Lezcano, Priscilla Lezcano, Sebastian Anzola, Gabriella Peralta, Adriana Perez)<br /><br />
Works Cited:
<br /><br />
Baca, Maria Elena. “Technology Give Teens Myriad Ways to Torment.” Star Tribune
(Minneapolis, MN.) Feb. 4 2007: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
Boschert, Sherry. “Cyberbullying triples suicide risk in teens.” Pediatric News June
2013: 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
"Cyberbullying only rarely the sole factor identified in teen suicides." Mental Health Weekly Digest 5 Nov. 2012: 149. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
Dealing with Bullying. New York, N.Y: Cambridge Educational, 2011.
“Demi Lovato Speaks Out on Cyber Bullying On Twitter” Huffingtonpost. TheHuffingtonPost,
2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014<br /><br />
Fiorella, Sam. "Cyber-Bullying, Social Media, and Parental Responsibility." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
Gayle, Damien. "Facebook Is the Worst Social Network for Bullying with 19-year-old BOYS the Most Common Victims." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
“Is cyberbullying deadly?” Technology & Learning May 2010: 10. Academic OneFile. Web. 13
Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
“Lorde and James Lowe, Her Rumored Boyfriend, Cyberbullied in the Most Racist, Mean
Way” Huffingtonpost. TheHuffingtonPost, 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014 <br /><br />
Mather, Kate. “‘The Whole School Knows’.” Los Angeles Time. 13 Apr. 2013: AA.1. SIRS
Issues. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
Sinrod, Eric J. "When Cyberbullying Hits Teens - CNET News." CNET News. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
Uhls, Yalda T. "Cyberbullying Has a Broader Impact than Traditional Bullying." Cyberbullying. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Is Bullying Going Digital? Cyber Bullying Facts." PsychologyinAction.org. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.<br /><br />
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. "Prevent Cyberbullying." StopBullying.gov. N.p. Web. 10 Feb. 2014. <br /><br />http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/prevention/index.html.<br /><br />
Wood, Daniel B. "Cyberbullying: Should schools police students' social media accounts?" Christian Science Monitor 17 Sept. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-34647706159736779852013-09-17T07:48:00.001-07:002013-09-17T07:48:13.284-07:00Reasons Why Prostitution Should Not Be LegalizedFrom the National Review Online By Fred Schwartz 9 July 2013
<br /><br />"Legalize Prostitution? Not So Fast"<br /><br />
Considering that this blog’s symbol is a lamppost, I guess it was inevitable that the subject would eventually turn to prostitution . . .
<br /><br />
I don’t entirely disagree with my man Charlie Cooke’s suggestion that prostitution should be legalized (under local option, I’d insist), but I’m not sure I go along with everything he said in his piece. Leaving moral issues aside (not because they’re unimportant, but because they were not the subject of Charlie’s discussion), I think it’s worth remembering that prostitution does have bad effects that ordinary adultery does not: exploitation of workers, spreading of disease, sleazification of neighborhoods, money going to criminal enterprises – not to mention that if adultery is a bad thing, as Charlie admits, why make it easier? The crime of prostitution may in some sense be victimless, but the industry is not.
<br /><br />
Charlie says we have to legalize prostitution so we can regulate it, which is an odd thing to hear from a libertarian. True, Nevada’s legal brothels, all located in rural counties, have some protections for workers, including regular medical exams, but these are not the only prostitutes in Nevada. And the more you pile on expensive or cumbersome regulations, the greater the incentive to continue operating illegally, especially if doing so has been downgraded from a crime to a violation. It’s far from clear that legalization would “take the industry out of the hands of criminals.”
<br /><br />
But the core of Charlie’s thesis is an assertion we hear raised frequently against various public policies — often, to be sure, with good reason: You can’t stop people from doing it, so why bother trying? The classic example is Prohibition, and it’s a better parallel than it may seem, because it can be cited to support both sides.
<br /><br />
No one is seriously arguing that Prohibition was a good thing, but there is ample historical evidence that it did reduce Americans’ consumption of alcohol — which is exactly what you would expect when you increase the cost of something and decrease its quality while making it harder to procure and adding in the chance of getting arrested.
<br /><br />
So if you abandon the straw man of eradicating the targeted activity, and substitute the more reasonable goal of trying to reduce it, Prohibition was a success. We still consider it a failure, though, because it was widely derided and half-heartedly enforced, and the reason for that is that alcohol is simply not something that should be banned: It’s not harmful or dangerous enough to warrant such treatment.
<br /><br />
The obvious counterpart is abortion. Yes, if you ban it, some women will have illegal abortions, which may be less safe and even more traumatic than legal ones. But there’s no question that a ban would significantly reduce the number of abortions, and from a pro-life perspective, the lives that would be saved greatly outweigh everything else. (For those who are pro-choice, of course, abortion falls into the “no reason to ban” category; but either way, the fact that some abortions will still be performed should not affect one’s position.)
<br /><br />
Or consider narcotics. As is the case in most legalize-it arguments, the optimistic assumption here is that if you do legalize it, nothing will get worse (consumption will not increase, because everyone who wants drugs can supposedly get them already), but all the bad parts (criminal involvement, heavy-handed law enforcement, financial ruin for users, poor hygienic standards, etc.) will disappear. So let’s legalize narcotics, the argument goes, and find something else to get worked up about. In Vietnam, this strategy was called “declare victory and go home,” and, as in Vietnam, it’s the right strategy if you don’t have the resources or the public support for an all-out fight. But the battle can be won if the will and the wherewithal are present. Eventually these things were no longer present in Vietnam; the same may or may not happen with the War on Drugs.
<br /><br />
In metaphorical wars and real ones, there’s always a weighing of costs and benefits. Prohibition of alcohol sits at one end of the spectrum, with narcotics and abortion towards the other end, and things like prostitution and marijuana in the middle. It makes sense to legalize an activity if it’s one that should not be banned (that’s a truism), or one whose costs, broadly reckoned, are less than the costs of suppressing it. Deciding the first of these questions, and calculating the second, is where the disagreements set in.
<br /><br />
In the case of prostitution, I can imagine a regime under which it’s legal that would be less harmful than what we have now. So perhaps it’s worth a try. But let’s not kid ourselves that legalization would put an end to criminal involvement in the trade, or the way it can ruin lives. And let’s remember that “they’ll do it anyway” is a weak argument when something genuinely needs to be fought.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-71925272667945853412013-09-17T07:43:00.000-07:002013-09-17T07:43:41.706-07:0010 Reasons We Should Not Legalize Prostitution
10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution<br /><br />
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)
(March 25, 2003)<br /><br /><br /><br />
(The following arguments apply to all state-sponsored forms of prostitution, including but not limited to full-scale legalization of brothels and pimping, decriminalization of the sex industry, regulating prostitution by laws such as registering or mandating health checks for women in prostitution, or any system in which prostitution is recognized as “sex work” or advocated as an employment choice).<br /><br />
1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
<br /><br />
What does legalization of prostitution or decriminalization of the sex industry mean? In the Netherlands, legalization amounts to sanctioning all aspects of the sex industry: the women themselves, the so-called “clients,” and the pimps who, under the regime of legalization, are transformed into third party businessmen and legitimate sexual entrepreneurs.
<br /><br />
Legalization/decriminalization of the sex industry also converts brothels, sex clubs, massage parlors and other sites of prostitution activities into legitimate venues where commercial sexual acts are allowed to flourish legally with few restraints.<br /><br />
Ordinary people believe that, in calling for legalization or decriminalization of prostitution, they are dignifying and professionalizing the women in prostitution. But dignifying prostitution as work doesn’t dignify the women, it simply dignifies the sex industry. People often don’t realize that decriminalization, for example, means decriminalization of the whole sex industry not just the women. And they haven’t thought through the consequences of legalizing pimps as legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen, or the fact that men who buy women for sexual activity are now accepted as legitimate consumers of sex.
<br /><br />
2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
<br /><br />
Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking. One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help end the exploitation of desperate immigrant women trafficked for prostitution. A report done for the governmental Budapest Group* stated that 80% of women in the brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999: 11). As early as 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, “nearly 70 per cent of trafficked women were from CEEC [Central and Eastern European Countries]” (IOM, 1995: 4).
<br /><br />
The government of the Netherlands promotes itself as the champion of anti-trafficking policies and programs, yet cynically has removed every legal impediment to pimping, procurement and brothels. In the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued for a legal quota of foreign “sex workers,” because the Dutch prostitution market demands a variety of “bodies” (Dutting, 2001: 16). Also in the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as “sex workers” in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed “migrant sex workers.”
<br /><br />
In January, 2002, prostitution in Germany was fully established as a legitimate job after years of being legalized in so-called eros or tolerance zones. Promotion of prostitution, pimping and brothels are now legal in Germany. As early as 1993, after the first steps towards legalization had been taken, it was recognized (even by pro-prostitution advocates) that 75 per cent of the women in Germany’s prostitution industry were foreigners from Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and other countries in South America (Altink, 1993: 33). After the fall of the Berlin wall, brothel owners reported that 9 out of every 10 women in the German sex industry were from eastern Europe (Altink, 1993: 43) and other former Soviet countries.
<br /><br />
The sheer volume of foreign women who are in the prostitution industry in Germany by some NGO estimates now up to 85 per cent casts further doubt on the fact that these numbers of women could have entered Germany without facilitation. As in the Netherlands, NGOs report that most of the foreign women have been trafficked into the country since it is almost impossible for poor women to facilitate their own migration, underwrite the costs of travel and travel documents, and set themselves up in business without outside help.
<br /><br />
The link between legalization of prostitution and trafficking in Australia was recognized in the U.S. State Department’s 1999 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In the country report on Australia, it was noted that in the State of Victoria which legalized prostitution in the 1980s, “Trafficking in East Asian women for the sex trade is a growing problem” in Australia…lax laws including legalized prostitution in parts of the country make [anti-trafficking] enforcement difficult at the working level.”
<br /><br />
3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it.
<br /><br />
Contrary to claims that legalization and decriminalization would regulate the expansion of the sex industry and bring it under control, the sex industry now accounts for 5 percent of the Netherlands economy (Daley, 2001: 4). Over the last decade, as pimping became legalized and then brothels decriminalized in the Netherlands in 2000, the sex industry expanded 25 percent (Daley, 2001: 4). At any hour of the day, women of all ages and races, dressed in hardly anything, are put on display in the notorious windows of Dutch brothels and sex clubs and offered for sale -- for male consumption. Most of them are women from other countries (Daley, 2001: 4) who have in all likelihood been trafficked into the Netherlands.
<br /><br />
Legalization of prostitution in the State of Victoria, Australia, has led to massive expansion of the sex industry. Whereas there were 40 legal brothels in Victoria in 1989, in 1999 there were 94, along with 84 escort services. Other forms of sexual exploitation, such as tabletop dancing, bondage and discipline centers, peep shows, phone sex, and pornography have all developed in much more profitable ways than before (Sullivan and Jeffreys, 20021).
<br /><br />
Prostitution has become an accepted sideline of the tourism and casino boom in Victoria with government-sponsored casinos authorizing the redeeming of casino chips and wheel of fortune bonuses at local brothels (Sullivan and Jeffreys, 2001). The commodification of women has vastly intensified and is much more visible.
<br /><br />
4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
<br /><br />
Legalization was supposed to get prostituted women off the street. Many women don’t want to register and undergo health checks, as required by law in certain countries legalizing prostitution, so legalization often drives them into street prostitution. And many women choose street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by the new sex “businessmen.”
<br /><br />
In the Netherlands, women in prostitution point out that legalization or decriminalization of the sex industry cannot erase the stigma of prostitution but, instead, makes women more vulnerable to abuse because they must register and lose anonymity. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still choose to operate illegally and underground. Members of Parliament who originally supported the legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women (Daley, 2001: A1).
<br /><br />
The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. The real growth in prostitution in Australia since legalization took effect has been in the illegal sector. Since the onset of legalization in Victoria, brothels have tripled in number and expanded in size the vast majority having no licenses but advertising and operating with impunity (Sullivan and Jeffreys, 2001). In New South Wales, brothels were decriminalized in 1995. In 1999, the numbers of brothels in Sydney had increased exponentially to 400-500. The vast majority have no license to operate. Control of illegal prostitution was taken out of the hands of the police, to end endemic police corruption, and placed in the hands of local councils and planning regulators. The council has neither the money nor the personnel to put investigators into brothels so that illegal operators can be prosecuted.
<br /><br />
5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.
<br /><br />
Another argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that it would help end child prostitution. In reality, however, child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001. The group estimates that at least 5,000 of the children in prostitution are from other countries, with a large segment being Nigerian girls (Tiggeloven, 2001).
<br /><br />
Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized. Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria. In a 1998 study undertaken by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) who conducted research for the Australian National Inquiry on Child Prostitution, there was increased evidence of organized commercial exploitation of children.
<br /><br />
6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
<br /><br />
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW) has conducted 2 major studies on sex trafficking and prostitution, interviewing almost 200 victims of commercial sexual exploitation. In these studies, women in prostitution indicated that prostitution establishments did little to protect them, regardless of whether they were in legal or illegal establishments. “The only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers.”
<br /><br />
In a CATW 5-country study that interviewed 146 victims of international trafficking and local prostitution, 80% of all women interviewed suffered physical violence from pimps and buyers) and endured similar and multiple health effects from the violence and sexual exploitation (Raymond et al, 2002).
<br /><br />
The violence that women were subjected to was an intrinsic part of the prostitution and sexual exploitation. Pimps used violence for many different reasons and purposes. Violence was used to initiate some women into prostitution and to break them down so that they would do the sexual acts. After initiation, at every step of the way, violence was used for sexual gratification of the pimps, as a form of punishment, to threaten and intimidate women, to exert the pimp’s dominance, to exact compliance, to punish women for alleged “violations,” to humiliate women, and to isolate and confine women.
<br /><br />
Of the women who did report that sex establishments gave some protection, they qualified it by pointing out that no “protector” was ever in the room with them, where anything could occur. One woman who was in out-call prostitution stated: “The driver functioned as a bodyguard. You’re supposed to call when you get in, to ascertain that everything was OK. But they are not standing outside the door while you’re in there, so anything could happen.”
<br /><br />
CATW’s studies found that even surveillance cameras in prostitution establishments are used to protect the establishment, but protection of the women from abuse is of secondary importance.
<br /><br />
7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
<br /><br />
With the advent of legalization in countries that have decriminalized the sex industry, many men who would not risk buying women for sex now see prostitution as acceptable. When the legal barriers disappear, so too do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual commodities. Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and boys that women are sexual commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun.
<br /><br />
As men have an excess of sexual services that are offered to them, women must compete to provide services by engaging in anal sex, sex without condoms, bondage and domination and other proclivities demanded by the clients. Once prostitution is legalized, all holds are barred. Women’s reproductive capacities are sellable products, for example. A whole new group of clients find pregnancy a sexual turn-on and demand breast milk in their sexual encounters with pregnant women (Sullivan and Jeffreys, 2001).
<br /><br />
Advertisements line the highways of Victoria offering women as objects for sexual use and teaching new generations of men and boys to treat women as subordinates. Businessmen are encouraged to hold their corporate meetings in these clubs where owners supply naked women on the table at tea breaks and lunchtime.
<br /><br />
A Melbourne brothel owner stated that the client base was “well educated professional men, who visit during the day and then go home to their families.” Women who desire more egalitarian relationships with men find that often the men in their lives are visiting the brothels and sex clubs. They have the choice to accept that their male partners are buying women in commercial sexual transactions, avoid recognizing what their partners are doing, or leave the relationship (Sullivan and Jeffreys, 2001).
<br /><br />
Sweden’s Violence Against Women, Government Bill 1997/98:55 prohibits and penalizes the purchase of “sexual services.” It is an innovative approach that targets the demand for prostitution. Sweden believes that “By prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, prostitution and its damaging effects can be counteracted more effectively than hitherto.” Importantly, this law clearly states that “Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon” and is “an obstacle to the ongoing development towards equality between women and men.”
<br /><br />
8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.
<br /><br />
A legalized system of prostitution that mandates health checks and certification only for women and not for clients is blatantly discriminatory to women. “Women only” health checks make no public health sense because monitoring prostituted women does not protect them from HIV/AIDS or STDs, since male “clients” can and do originally transmit disease to the women.
<br /><br />
It is argued that legalized brothels or other “controlled” prostitution establishments “protect” women through enforceable condom policies. In one of CATW’s studies, U.S. women in prostitution interviewed reported the following: 47% stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; 45% of women said they were abused if they insisted that men use condoms. Some women said that some establishments have rules that men wear condoms but, in reality, men still try to have sex without them. One woman stated: “It’s ‘regulation’ to wear a condom at the sauna, but negotiable between parties on the side. Most guys expected blow jobs without a condom (Raymond and Hughes, 2001).”
<br /><br />
In reality, the enforcement of condom policy was left to the individual women in prostitution, and the offer of extra money was an insistent pressure. One woman stated: “I’d be one of those liars if I said ‘Oh I always used a condom.’ If there was extra money coming in, then the condom would be out the window. I was looking for the extra money.” Many factors militate against condom use: the need of women to make money; older women’s decline in attractiveness to men; competition from places that do not require condoms; pimp pressure on women to have sex with no condom for more money; money needed for a drug habit or to pay off the pimp; and the general lack of control that prostituted women have over their bodies in prostitution venues.
<br /><br />
Socalled "safety policies" in brothels did not protect women from harm. Even where brothels supposedly monitored the "customers" and utilized "bouncers," women stated that they were injured by buyers and, at times, by brothel owners and their friends. Even when someone intervened to control buyers' abuse, women lived in a climate of fear. Although 60 percent of women reported that buyers had sometimes been prevented from abusing them, half of those women answered that, nonetheless, they thought that they might be killed by one of their "customers” (Raymond et al, 2002).
<br /><br />
9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.
<br /><br />
Most women in prostitution did not make a rational choice to enter prostitution. They did not sit down one day and decide that they wanted to be prostitutes. Rather, such “choices” are better termed “survival strategies.” Rather than consent, a prostituted woman more accurately complies to the only options available to her. Her compliance is required by the very fact of having to adapt to conditions of inequality that are set by the customer who pays her to do what he wants her to do.
<br /><br />
Most of the women interviewed in CATW studies reported that choice in entering the sex industry could only be discussed in the context of the lack of other options. Most emphasized that women in prostitution had few other options. Many spoke about prostitution as the last option, or as an involuntary way of making ends meet. In one study, 67% of the law enforcement officials that CATW interviewed expressed the opinion that women did not enter prostitution voluntarily. 72% of the social service providers that CATW interviewed did not believe that women voluntarily choose to enter the sex industry (Raymond and Hughes, 2001) .
<br /><br />
The distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution is precisely what the sex industry is promoting because it will give the industry more security and legal stability if these distinctions can be utilized to legalize prostitution, pimping and brothels. Women who bring charges against pimps and perpetrators will bear the burden of proving that they were “forced.” How will marginalized women ever be able to prove coercion? If prostituted women must prove that force was used in recruitment or in their “working conditions,” very few women in prostitution will have legal recourse and very few offenders will be prosecuted.
<br /><br />
Women in prostitution must continually lie about their lives, their bodies, and their sexual responses. Lying is part of the job definition when the customer asks, “did you enjoy it?” The very edifice of prostitution is built on the lie that “women like it.” Some prostitution survivors have stated that it took them years after leaving prostitution to acknowledge that prostitution wasn’t a free choice because to deny their own capacity to choose was to deny themselves.
<br /><br />
There is no doubt that a small number of women say they choose to be in prostitution, especially in public contexts orchestrated by the sex industry. In the same way, some people choose to take dangerous drugs such as heroin. However, even when some people choose to take dangerous drugs, we still recognize that this kind of drug use is harmful to them, and most people do not seek to legalize heroin. In this situation, it is harm to the person, not the consent of the person that is the governing standard.
<br /><br />
Even a 1998 ILO (UN International Labor Organization) report suggesting that the sex industry be treated as a legitimate economic sector, found that “…prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour; the surveys [in 4 countries] show that women worked ‘with a heavy heart,’ ‘felt forced,’ or were ‘conscience-stricken’ and had negative self-identities. A significant proportion claimed they wanted to leave sex work [sic] if they could (Lim, 1998: 213).”
<br /><br />
When a woman remains in an abusive relationship with a partner who batters her, or even when she defends his actions, concerned people don’t say she is there voluntarily. They recognize the complexity of her compliance. Like battered women, women in prostitution often deny their abuse if provided with no meaningful alternatives.
<br /><br />
10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized.
<br /><br />
In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps (Raymond et al, 2002). “No way. It’s not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men’s side.” Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: “Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything.”
<br /><br />
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-72377630687934224892013-09-17T07:34:00.000-07:002013-09-17T07:35:46.472-07:0010 Reasons to legalize prostitutionFrom Exminer.com<br /><br />By Wendy Gittleson
"Ten Reasons We Need to Legalize Prostitution"
<br /><br /><br /><br />
1.It’s good for the health of her customers (johns): Legalized prostitution would allow the state to require that all prostitutes take regular health exams, helping to ensure that she or he is not carrying a sexually transmitted disease.
<br /><br />2. It would give the prostitute employment rights: Many prostitutes are at the financial mercy of their pimps, who often take more than half their income. Legalization would protect their rights.
<br /><br />3. It would open the door to unionization: Unions would probably be the best enforcer of the industry. They would help ensure that under the radar (illegal, non-taxpaying, non-health exam participants) would stay off the streets.
<br /><br />4. It’s good for the health of the prostitute: People who live outside the law feel that they can’t turn to the law for protection. Prostitutes are regularly beaten and even killed with little recourse.
<br /><br />5. Illegal prostitution costs us money: While the costs involved are hard to estimate, it taxes the police force, the public defenders offices and the judicial system. All of these resources could be better utilized pursuing and prosecuting violent offenders.
<br /><br />6. Legalized prostitution would pay: We could tax prostitution in the same way we tax hospitality, often higher than normal sales tax.
<br /><br />7. It can’t be prevented: There’s a reason it’s called “the world’s oldest profession”. It’s always been around, it always will be. We might as well bring it out into the open.
<br /><br />8. The laws are arbitrary and hypocritical: It’s okay for a woman to have sex with a stranger. It’s okay for a woman to have sex with a man she hardly knows after he buys her dinner and drinks or jewelry or other trinkets, why is cash currency treated so differently?
<br /><br />9. More jobs: With our ever expanding unemployment rate…okay, it might not be the best idea, but you know that women and some men are turning to prostitution out of desperation. At least it would be something to legitimately put on a resume and the Obama administration could take credit for creating some jobs.
<br /><br />10. It is her or his body! Period!!!!
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-80857376225234302692013-09-06T11:44:00.000-07:002013-09-19T07:21:07.319-07:00Reasons Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized"Not So Fast! A Case Against the Legalization of Marijuana" <br /><br />
By Daniel K. Duncan, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 April 2013
<br /><br />
After decades of hearing about marijuana, after repeatedly being told that it’s “safer than alcohol,” that “it’s a medicine,” or that “prohibition doesn’t make sense so we should just make it legal,” most all of us have succumbed to propaganda fatigue and have concluded that since the “War on Drugs” has not substantially curtailed the use of this drug, there’s no harm in just making it legal.
<br /><br />
Thanks in large part to the millions of dollars marijuana advocates are pouring into advertising and lobbying efforts, 15 states have now passed various levels of decriminalization laws with two states, Colorado and Washington, approving legalization measures that may or may not stand, depending upon the response of the federal government.
<br /><br />
Here in Missouri we see an effort in the city of St. Louis to decriminalize cannabis, and a proposed bill circulating in Jefferson City to do something similar statewide.
<br /><br />
One of the more confusing aspects of this debate is the sometimes mixed use of the terms “decriminalization” and “legalization.” The words are sometimes used interchangeably, but they have different meanings and, likely, different consequences. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse-St. Louis Area does not endorse legalization. However we see the benefits in an intelligent decriminalization of using small quantities of the drug.
<br /><br />
Legalization advocates — those who propose totally eliminating the prohibition of marijuana — pose some convincing arguments, but they willfully ignore or disguise several established scientific facts. Marijuana may be less harmful than other drugs, but it is far from harmless.
<br /><br />
The research clearly indicates that marijuana is not only addictive (approximately 1 out of 6 youths who smoke marijuana will develop a dependence) but that the dangers of marijuana are, in fact, far more pronounced in young people than in adults. Marijuana is unquestionably a gateway to other, more dangerous drug use and, unsurprisingly, recent studies show regular users of marijuana may suffer a significant and permanent drop in IQ. The other health risks attached to smoked marijuana (e.g. stroke, cancer, psychosis) are suggested by early research but still unknown.
<br /><br />
If the debate over the safety of marijuana sounds familiar, it should. We’ve been down this road before.
<br /><br />
There are disturbing parallels between enjoying marijuana and alcohol. The use of tobacco became socially popular after the Civil War. For a hundred years it was widely used and thought to be harmless. Eventually, as tobacco companies came to know more about the addictive properties of nicotine than the public did, they not only withheld the information, they used it to direct their marketing efforts at young people because the sooner they got us addicted, the longer we’d be a paying customer.
<br /><br />
Then, in the 1960s, things changed. Science stepped in and began to study tobacco use and learned what big tobacco already knew. And more. The link to lung cancer was rapidly established, and warning labels were affixed to the side of every package. The reaction among smokers was immediate and visceral; they were irate that their drug of choice was being called into question; they denied and challenged the findings and, with the help of the tobacco industry, found flaws with the science.
<br /><br />
Eventually, as the studies mounted, the evidence became irrefutable. Smoking this drug was not just a bad idea, it was a terrible idea. Not only did it cause cancer, it also contributed to heart disease and other pulmonary issues such as emphysema. Does anyone still believe tobacco is harmless? Is anyone really happy that tobacco is legal, is marketed to and is easily available to our kids?
<br /><br />
For the last 45 years we’ve been trying to curb the use of tobacco, arguably our No. 1 public health threat. Is there a lesson to be learned from this? It would seem so. While it may make sense to intelligently decriminalize the use of marijuana, a legitimate case for full legalization has yet to be made. Introducing another likely “legal” threat to public health — especially the health of our youth — is misguided, premature and ill-advised.
<br /><br />
The NCADA endorses the SAM (Smart Approach to Marijuana) Project proposed by Patrick Kennedy; read it at learnaboutsam.com. Let’s better understand the evidence of harm, achieve a balanced policy in terms of law enforcement, educate the public and, if possible, develop safe and regulated, FDA-approved medications from the active ingredients of cannabis. Ultimately, let’s have science weigh in on this before we make another mistake that haunts us for the next hundred years.
<br /><br />
Daniel K. Duncan is director of community services for the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse–St. Louis Area.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-32719030109270518422013-09-06T11:37:00.001-07:002013-09-06T11:37:21.076-07:008 Reasons to Legalize MarijuanaBy Tom Head <br /><br />
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-Marijuana-Should-Be-Legalized.htm
<br /><br /><br /><br />
We really shouldn't have to ask why marijuana should be legal; the burden is on the government to show why it shouldn't, and none of the explanations for marijuana prohibition are especially convincing. But as long as we have to deal with the reality of marijuana laws, we can present a strong case for repeal.
1. The government has no right to enforce marijuana laws.
<br /><br />
There are always reasons why laws exist. While some advocates for the status quo claim that marijuana laws prevent people from harming themselves, the most common rationale is that they prevent people from harming themselves and from causing harm to the larger culture. But laws against self-harm always stand on shaky ground—predicated, as they are, on the idea that the government knows what's good for you better than you do—and no good ever comes from making governments the guardians of culture.
<br /><br />
2. Enforcement of marijuana laws is racially discriminatory.
<br /><br />
The burden of proof for marijuana-prohibition advocates would be high enough if marijuana laws were enforced in a racially neutral manner, but—this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our country's long history of racial profiling—they are most definitely not.
3. Enforcement of marijuana laws is prohibitively expensive.
<br /><br />
Six years ago, Milton Friedman and a group of over 500 economists advocated for marijuana legalization on the basis that prohibition directly costs more than $7.7 billion per year.
4. Enforcement of marijuana laws is unnecessarily cruel.
You don't have to look very hard to find examples of lives needlessly destroyed by marijuana prohibition laws. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans, more than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession every year. These new "convicts" are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals.
<br /><br />
5. Marijuana laws impede legitimate criminal justice goals.
Just as alcohol prohibition essentially created the American Mafia, marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy where crimes unrelated to marijuana, but connected to people who sell and use it, go unreported. End result: real crimes become harder to solve.
<br /><br />
6. Marijuana laws cannot be consistently enforced.
Every year, an estimated 2.4 million people use marijuana for the first time. Most will never be arrested for it; a small percentage, usually low-income people of color, arbitrarily will. If the objective of marijuana prohibition laws is to actually prevent marijuana use rather than driving it underground, then the policy is, despite its astronomical cost, an utter failure from a pure law enforcement point of view.
<br /><br />7. Taxing marijuana can be profitable. A recent Fraser Institute study found that legalizing and taxing marijuana could produce considerable revenue.
<br /><br />8. Alcohol and tobacco, though legal, are far more harmful than marijuana.
I have written in the past that the case for tobacco prohibition is actually much stronger than the case for marijuana prohibition. Alcohol prohibition has, of course, already been tried - and, judging by the history of the War on Drugs, legislators have apparently learned nothing from this failed experiment.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-19940436029988153352013-09-05T13:36:00.004-07:002013-09-06T11:32:00.597-07:00Remove the N-Word from Huckleberry Finn
From the Huffington Post: Politics Daily<br /><br />
"Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy"<br /><br />
By Delila Lloyd<br /><br />
LONDON -- My 10-year-old came home from school the other day with an assignment from his teacher: write an original story based on the concept of a "shipwreck."
<br /><br />
He promptly sat down at the dinner table and began composing his opus. It was the story of a "tan-skinned" pirate of Somali origin who hijacks a boat with an AK-47. In broken English, the pirate threatens all the passengers on the ship with his weapon. Then they die.
<br /><br />
When my son showed me his essay afterward, I was mortified. "You can't write this!" I exclaimed. "You sound like a racist!" I then forced him to expurgate the most offensive passages, including the color of the pirate's skin and the derogatory description of his accent.
<br /><br />
But when I recounted this story to an English friend of mine, she just shook her head. "Oh, you Americans!" she said, laughing. "You're so hung up on political correctness! An English teacher would neither notice nor care about any of this. Lighten up!"
<br /><br />
I was reminded of this vignette earlier this week when I read that a new edition of Mark Twain's classic novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is coming out in February. In the new version, all instances of the N-word -- which appears more than 200 times in the original text -- have been expunged. In its place, the book employs the term "slave." ("Injun," a derogatory term for Native Americans, will be replaced by "Indian.")
<br /><br />
The decision to create a new version of the text was made by Alan Gribben of Auburn University, who is editing the book for Alabama-based publisher New South. Gribben, a Twain scholar who has taught the book for decades, says that he himself struggled with uttering the N-word aloud in the classroom. And he's not alone. Despite being considered one of the greatest American novels, "Huckleberry Finn" is the fourth most banned book in U.S. schools. Gribben is thus trying to combat what he calls the "pre-emptive censorship" that many educators have employed toward Twain's works because of their racially charged content.
<br /><br />
But news of the new edition has not been greeted warmly either inside or outside of the academy. It's been excoriated as nothing less than censorship in many literary quarters. One Twain scholar, UCLA's Thomas Wortham, compared Gribben to Thomas Bowdler, the British editor of the 19th century who created a notorious "family" version of Shakespeare, which removed all sexual themes so as not to offend Victorian wives and children. "How can we expect children to learn real history if we sanitize it for them?" queries Wired's Matt Blum.
<br /><br />
Elon James White, writing in Salon, agrees. He argues that the only way to get Americans to deal openly and honestly with prejudice is to force students to be uncomfortable with terms that -- unpleasant though they may be -- are part and parcel of our country's blatantly racist past. "America is a society in which our ugly history is not so far gone as to allow for cold, detached analysis," he writes. "Because of the mistreatment of everyone who wasn't/isn't white, straight and male, America is constantly defending itself instead of dealing head-on with the wrongs that it willingly played a role in."
<br /><br />
As a devotee of Mark Twain, I'm sympathetic to these objections. Take the N-word out of "Huckleberry Finn" and is it still "Huckleberry Finn"? Probably not. It is, after all, a story narrated in Huck's voice.
<br /><br />
As a parent, however, I'm less sympathetic to Gribben's critics. Over the holidays, when we were back in the U.S., my husband and I bought the latest Eminem CD, "Recovery," for our son. But we deliberately selected the edited version, which takes out all of the swear words. We weren't so much concerned with our son hearing the curses (trust me, he's heard them) as we were with some of the derogatory words the rap artist uses to talk about women. Why expose a 10-year-old to misogyny?
<br /><br />
There is, to be sure, a big difference between contemporary rap music and a classic of American literature. Or at least so my son thought when I posed this question to him. His view is that rap is an inherently angry genre and, as such, swearing is central to its aesthetic (word choice mine, idea entirely his). But he says that he can still enjoy a rap CD even when it's "sanitized" -- it is, after all, still entertaining.
<br /><br />
In contrast, he thinks that "Huckleberry Finn" is a book about social relationships. And so to remove the language in which those relationships are couched is both historically inaccurate and distorts the meaning of the text.
<br /><br />
But there are more practical reasons to think that having a cleaned-up version of "Huckleberry Finn" isn't, as Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams' puts it, "the worst thing in the world." Williams echoes Gribben in pointing out just how hard it would be to appropriately contextualize the racism in the book for a group of children. "I have a tough time imagining my kids sharing the experience of reading the words 'Jim had an uncommon level head, for a nigger' with their fellow students in school, let alone saying them out loud in their classrooms," she writes. "I sure as hell wouldn't envy the teacher whose job it was to steer the discussion afterward."
<br /><br />
Nor would I. I remember a few years back, when one of the teachers at my daughter's school tried to get a group of 8-year-olds to understand racism by having all the white kids in the class yell all the racial slurs they could possibly come up with at all the children of color. Her objective was to get the students to see the idiocy and toxicity of racism. But the experiment backfired. The children were frightened, confused and horrified. And even here, in the less-than-PC U.K., the teacher nearly lost her job. It's not clear that you can do Twain -- or racism -- justice in the hour you get as a teacher to talk about this book.
<br /><br />
It's also true that the N-word, as Gribben points out, has gotten more, not less, offensive over time. "The N-word possessed, then as now, demeaning implications more vile than almost any insult that can be applied to other racial groups," he said. "As a result, with every passing decade this affront appears to gain rather than lose its impact."
<br /><br />
Last year, my colleague Mary C. Curtis wrote about talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger's use of the N-word, which she uttered so liberally during one particular on-air rant that the subsequent outcry prompted her to say she would retire. As Mary points out, "This is the word that people with ropes used as they lynched men and women for an afternoon's entertainment. This is the word craven politicians shouted to stoke racial fear. This word has been used as background music to terror."
<br /><br />
In short, the N-word isn't just a piece of regional jargon that marks a particular moment in our nation's history. It's a hateful word. It's poisonous. And it's pervasive. Does all this mean that in the future, children should only consume the kindler, gentler Huck Finn 2.0 that Gribben and Co. are peddling? I'm not sure. But this issue certainly isn't as black and white, so to speak, as some critics are making it out to be.
<br /><br /><br /><br />
Follow Delia on Twitter. Filed Under: Race Issues, Woman Up, Culture
Tagged: Alan Gribben, edited CDs, Huck Finn and N-Word, Huck Finn and racism, Huck Finn banned books, Huck Finn censorship, Huck Finn new edition, Huck Finn politically correct, Huckleberry finn and N-Word, Mark Twain, N-word, teaching Huck FinnPreston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-68844324870027683902013-09-05T13:34:00.001-07:002013-09-05T13:34:19.057-07:00Don't Remove the N-Word from Huckleberry FinnHuffington Post Education Blog<br /><br />
By <br /><br />
Hetert-Qebu Walters
<br /><br />
11th-Grade U.S. History Teacher
<br /><br />
"Educate Don't Censor: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the N-Word"<br /><br />
"Whenever we are reading the book aloud in this class, and you come across this word (points to word in book), you will replace it with the word slave." The book was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, the word on the board was nigger, and my English teacher, Mr. Bonsignore was establishing the ground rules for how we would engage with this classic American text with respect for both the author and each other. Instead of ending there, his statement was the beginning of a dialogue. He took a moment that was difficult and turned it into an opportunity to educate.
<br /><br />
With the New South edition of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, edited by Alan Gribben, to replace the word "nigger" with the word "slave", these types of teachable moments are going to be lost. The class discussions about why a poor white boy in the antebellum South referred to a black man on a journey to freedom in such a way will disappear. While there are many ways to teach Huckleberry Finn the omission of a word that appears 219 times isn't a welcome alternative but an erasure--not just of the obstacles for educators who wish to use the book, but of what that deplorable word represents.
<br /><br />
As a history teacher I know firsthand how difficult it is to teach about the antebellum South, but I also know how rewarding it is. There are ways to engage children to think about the atrocities of the past with compassion and respect. Contradictions in our history as well as our literature provide students with tools for understanding not only the complexities of the world but also their own identities. Replacing "nigger" with "slave" creates a silence around what was. Instead of omitting language that touches on difficult topics, teachers and administrators should focus on creating curricular supports for educators to deal with the challenges of teaching complicated subjects.
<br /><br />
Children are remarkably intuitive and recognize what is spoken as well as what is unspoken. In my recent high-school US History class, my students had a very thoughtful discussion about "nigger", a word they are not allowed to use in my classroom, but was relevant to our discussion of the effects of Black Codes & Jim Crow Laws. I didn't include the word in the class notes, but one student made the connection between the KKK's reign of terror that began during Reconstruction and hate speech. I could have easily censured this student by saying, "that word is hurtful, please don't use it." Thankfully I didn't. By allowing them to understand the word as an outgrowth of the dehumanization of a people, they began to think critically about their own experiences. They understood the context of the word and then articulated critiques of what it means to be disrespected, some of which were the most insightful comments I'd heard from them all year.
<br /><br />
If I were to censor their conversation, I would've shut down their process, controlled how they engaged the material. Gribben's editorial changes are another form of censorship, seeking to gloss over the complexities of life during a horrific period in American history. It is important to acknowledge this historical moment for all that it was, as it still affects us today. We should know about it to ensure that we never return there and never forget.
<br /><br />
On a positive note, more students will now have access to a version of Huckleberry Finn, and that is a good thing. Gribben is just doing what many have done in their classrooms already. What's the big deal? The big deal is that even though many teachers use the word slave in class, the novel still said "nigger". Confronting that word is important. That confrontation was difficult for me as a young black girl, but the book was set during difficult times and I understood that even more as I read the book because my teacher was there to help me.
<br /><br />
I'd like to encourage educators to choose an edition of Huckleberry Finn that respects the words of Twain as he wrote them & his critique of our nation's history. If the idea of explaining the dreaded "n-word" is too daunting,reach out, ask a colleague for support or turn to an online teacher community for help; like teachhub.com. If your school district only allows you to use Gribben's version, use the edits as an opportunity for your students to think critically about why such an edition was considered necessary. Push them to think about Twain's intentions and why that word still offends the sensibilities of so many. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn provides teachable moments, even in this act of Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-63280735846727522262013-08-29T12:02:00.000-07:002013-08-29T12:05:12.941-07:00Pros and Cons of Abstinence OnlyFrom Buzzle.com<br /><br />
"Pros and Cons of Abstinence Only Education"<br /><br />
If you are planning to enroll your child into an abstinence only education program, it is important for you to know about its pros and cons. This article will give you information on what exactly to expect from an abstinence only education.
<br /><br />
The last decade has shown an increase in the rate of teenage pregnancy as well as cases of sexually transmitted diseases in teenagers. This has increased the need to provide sex education to students who are on the threshold of becoming teenagers. Sexual education is a program where the students are given information about the actual act of sex as well as the ways in which one can avoid unwanted pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted diseases. However, certain conventionalists are completely against this idea and think that providing information about contraception to youngsters is equivalent of encouraging them to have sex. For them, the best way of preventing teenage pregnancy is with the help of abstinence only education program. Nevertheless, it is important to analyze this program, before taking any decision.
<br /><br />
What is Abstinence only Education?
<br /><br />
Before we go into the pros and cons of abstinence only education, it is important to know what it is exactly. Though the term itself is actually self-explanatory, it is important to know about it in detail. Abstinence only education is a program where teenagers are told that they should abstain from sexual intercourse till they get married. They are told that sexual intercourse before marriage is morally incorrect and should be avoided completely. Here, they are not given any information about condoms or other contraceptive methods. The advocates of abstinence only education method say that as the advice of abstaining from drugs, drinking and driving, etc. has worked to prevent teenagers from indulging in such activities, it will be same in case of sex. However, does abstinence only education actually works? Let us find out by looking at the advantages and disadvantages of abstinence only education.
<br /><br /><br /><br />
Pros and Cons
<br /><br />
Advantages
<br /><br />
One of the biggest advantages of abstinence only education is that it informs teenagers that abstinence from sex is the only foolproof method of avoiding the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy. Also, it is the 100% way of staying away from any kind of sexually transmitted diseases.<br /><br />
Another advantage of abstinence only education is that it aids in preventing emotional or psychological damage. Some people who have had sex early in life have said that they regretted it and carried the guilt for a long time.
<br /><br />Apart from this, the advocates of abstinence only education are of the opinion that teaching teenagers to abstain from sexual intercourse till marriage is actually a way of helping them to build more meaningful as well as long-lasting relationships.<br /><br />
Disadvantages
<br /><br />
The biggest disadvantage of abstinence only education is that there is no guarantee that this method will prevent teenagers from actually abstaining from sex. There has been no evidence regarding this. On the other hand, it has been seen that teenagers who have given this education are likely to indulge in sexual intercourse at a young age.
Some critics of the abstinence method say that teenagers are more likely to have sex at an early age, if they are asked to keep off it completely. If this is the case, they do not have adequate knowledge of contraceptive measures due to which the chances of pregnancy as well as STD are very high.<br /><br />
As a lot of emphasis is given to virginity in abstinence only education, there are chances that teenagers may indulge in some risky behavior like oral or anal sex because virginity is very commonly associated with vaginal sex.<br /><br />
We can now conclude that Abstinence only education alone cannot solve the problem of teenagers indulging in sexual behavior or the problem of teenage pregnancy. The best way would be to have a combination of abstinence only education as well as sex education program, where along with the advantages of abstaining from sex, teenagers should also be given information about contraceptive methods. Parents and teachers should actually educate teenagers about taking the right decision and indulging in sexual intercourse, only when they feel that it is right.<br /><br />
By Deepa Kartha<br /><br />
Last Updated: 9/23/2011
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-48652963080775289842013-08-29T11:52:00.000-07:002013-08-29T11:54:19.714-07:00Pros: Abstinence Only
By DAVID MUIR and HANNA SIEGEL<br /><br />»Weekend Anchor, "World News"
<br /><br />
"NEW STUDY SAYS ABSTINENCE WORKS"
<br /><br />
For the first time, researchers say they have clear evidence that abstinence education works and it could change the conversation about young people and sex.
<br /><br />
"I think this is a game-changing piece of evidence," says Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen, Unplanned Pregnancy.<br /><br />
For the study, released Monday in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, researchers followed sixth and seventh graders in separate groups. In one, the focus was abstinence; in the other, they taught contraception and safe sex.
<br /><br />
Two years later, they talked to the kids again.
<br /><br />
Scholars Call the Results 'Groundbreaking'
<br /><br />
Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.
<br /><br />
But there was something else at play here. Researchers say it was how the topic of abstinence was approached.
<br /><br />
Bristol Palin recently went on national television and pledging that she would wait until marriage before having sex again.<br /><br />
"It's a realistic goal for myself," she said.
<br /><br />
But in this study, the teachers didn't take it that far. They purposely stayed away from religion, morality and marriage. For example, they did not preach waiting for sex until marriage or disparage using condoms.
<br /><br />
A Different Approach to an Age-Old Subject
<br /><br />
Instead, the study took a less traditional approach, discussing the drawbacks to having sex early, such as unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Teachers even made kids list the pros and cons of having sex themselves.
<br /><br />
"We began by talking to children and trying to understand their motivations, reasons for engaging in the behaviors from their perspectives," says John Jemmott III, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania and the lead author of the study.<br /><br />
"[Researchers] simply said delay," Brown says. "Wait a bit. Sex is serious. It has risks. And we just recommend you wait until you're older."
<br /><br />
Traditional abstinence-only education, which emphasizes morality and waiting until marriage, has long been criticized and has lost funding for what many say is a lack of effectiveness.
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, though, abstinence advocacy groups praised this study and said the Obama administration's movement away from abstinence-only education in schools was not the right choice.
<br /><br />
Talking to Kids About Sex, Communication Is Key
<br /><br />
For nearly a year, ABC News followed 15-year-old Mahogany Bryant, through her pregnancy.
<br /><br />
We went back to visit her today at her Lousiville, Ky., school where she told us she had never had a conversation with a teacher or a parent about sex.
<br /><br />
"We didn't have those kinds of talks," Braynt said.
<br /><br />
Some advocates say with these new results from sex education away from the home, there could be even greater results if the education from within the home, from parents.
<br /><br />
Talking about sex is even more powerful coming from a parent, says Monica Rodriguez of the Sexual Information and Education Council, an advocacy group that supports comprehensive sex education.
<br /><br />
"It may seem like they're tuning us out and turning their iPods up, but they want to hear from us," she says. "They're absolutely listening.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-44338129725246197252013-08-28T16:20:00.000-07:002013-08-28T16:22:09.628-07:00Pro LifeAbout.com Women's Issues<br /><br />
Pro-Life - 10 Arguments Against Abortion
<br /><br />
1. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life
<br /><br />
2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
<br /><br />
3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
<br /><br />
4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.
<br /><br />
5. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.
<br /><br />
6. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
<br /><br />
7. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence.
<br /><br />
8. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
<br /><br />
9. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards.
<br /><br />
10. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-54060802657589154252013-08-28T16:17:00.002-07:002013-08-28T16:17:16.853-07:00Pro Choice
10 Arguments in Favor of Pro-Choice Policy<br /><br />
by Theo<br /><br />
From Amplify Your Voice (Amplifyyourvoice.com)
<br /><br />26 January 2009<br /><br />
10. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions does not change when it goes from being legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions.
<br /><br />
9. If people want to stop abortion, they should turn to methods that do work. These include comprehensive sex education and safe, affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, as illogical as it sounds, the people who are most against abortion are also often most against these preventative measures. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.
<br /><br />
8. The politicians “pro-lifers” so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. The majority of them are not “pro-life” because they agree with you; they are because they know you will continue to vote for them—and they know that making women remain pregnant not only takes away their power, but it also keeps them busy, in line, controlled, as well as a baking factory for their failing economy. The more people they have to rule over, the more they have to work and buy. Period.
<br /><br />
7. Religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so why would the beliefs and values of one religion mandate actual laws for all citizens? It would be unfair, unjust and immoral. We do not have laws against eating fish, nor do we have laws that declare it is legal to sell one’s daughter, rape someone, or keep a person as a slave—all things that are promoted in religious text.
<br /><br />
6. Reproductive restrictions do not end with abortion. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong—another mainly-religious philosophy—and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. There are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women their birth control because of their beliefs; does this not violate the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of women are on birth control because their very lives depend on it (see #2)? Also, since it is my belief that men should not rape women, if I were a pharmacist, would I have a right to deny a man his Viagra just in case he uses it to rape? You never know.
<br /><br />
5. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant. If a law would never, in any circumstance, apply to a man, a man creating that law is preposterous. It is akin to men creating laws that ban women from voting, owning property, or showing skin in public—only much more deadly.
<br /><br />
4. Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth (see #2), should we allow this further risk to endured on top of what has already been done?
<br /><br />
Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?
<br /><br />
My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so much—the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children… perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much.<br /><br />
Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these “child-lovers” should step in and care for these already-born children as well.
<br /><br />
3. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and poverty. There is a reason that the 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves them powerless to provide for not only their own families, but themselves.
<br /><br />
2. Reproductive choice can be the only thing that stands between a woman and DEATH. Women who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve to choose to live. Teen girls, whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well.
<br /><br />
During my own pregnancy—which had been unexpected though joyful up to this point—I was horrified to learn that I had preeclampsia only 25 weeks in. While they were able to save both my daughter and me, she was born at 1 pound, three months premature, and was a medical miracle. Most babies at that weight do not survive; and if they do, they suffer severe complications—as do the mothers, including myself. I was then informed that my risk of it happening all over again was extremely high, and that if there were a next time I may not be so lucky. I am fortunate to have access to birth control, but many women—especially young ones—do not. Preeclampsia alone affects 10 to 15% of all women! There are hundreds of other complications that arise besides preeclampsia that can, and will, result in death as well.>
<br /><br />
1. Doctors, not governments, should always be the people to make medical recommendations and opinions. Would you allow the government to tell you if you could have a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion? Of course not. The fact that we even consider, let alone allow, governments to regulate a medical procedure is both illogical and foolish.Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-38921198630734024542013-08-01T11:10:00.001-07:002013-08-02T12:21:49.695-07:00No Cellphones--"Cellphones While Driving? Bad Idea"
Get The Facts<br /><br />
Cell phone distracted driving is an epidemic in the United States, joining alcohol and speeding as a leading factor in fatal and serious injury crashes. Thousands die senselessly every year due to drivers using cell phones - handheld and hands-free, and the time is now to do something about it.<br /><br />
Cell phone use is a factor in nearly 1 in 4 crashes, according to the National Safety Council.<br /><br />
In 2009, 5,474 people were killed and an estimated 448,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving cell phone distracted driving.
<br /><br />
Use the facts and resources here to educate yourself about the dangers of cell phone use behind the wheel and help stop this deadly behavior. Banning cell phone use while driving isn’t just about keeping you safe—it’s about keeping everyone on the roadways safe. Don’t let you or your loved ones become another statistic.
<br /><br />
Cell phone use has grown dramatically in recently years. In 1995, cell phone subscriptions covered only 11% of the United States population; in 2010, that number grew to 93%. This has led to a substantial increase in cell phone use while driving and distracted driving-related deaths.<br /><br />
At any one time, 9% of drivers are talking on cell phones, making them 4 times as likely to crash.<br /><br />
Talking on a cell phone while driving requires the brain to multitask—a process it cannot do safely while driving. While a growing number of drivers are turning to hands-free devices, studies show hands-free devices provide no safety benefit. The area of the brain responsible for processing moving visual information—a vital part of driving—has 37% less capacity to gather and process critical driving data and instead focuses on the cell phone conversation.
<br /><br />
It’s the conversation, not the device, that creates the danger.
<br /><br />
Almost 70% of the respondents to the 2010 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety survey reported talking on a cell phone while driving in the previous 30 days, yet nearly 2 in 3 drivers say that drivers talking on cell phones are a threat to their personal safety. People realize that talking on a cell phone while driving is a dangerous behavior, but they continue to engage in this behavior.<br /><br />
We can all help put an end to this deadly problem by not to driving while using a cell phone and encouraging others to do the same. This simple commitment will save lives and create a safer environment for us all.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-1856826577972191442013-08-01T10:32:00.002-07:002013-08-02T12:22:19.054-07:00Yes Cellphones--"Cellphones While Driving. The Benefits?"Independent.org<br /><br />
September 21, 2001<br /><br />
Statement of J. Robert Latham, Jr., J.D.,Public Affairs Director, The Independent Institute, California Legislative Panel.<br /><br />Sponsored by Assemblymember Audie Elizabeth Bock
<br /><br />
Elihu M. Harris State Building Auditorium
Oakland, California<br /><br />
Thank you Assemblymember Audie Bock for the invitation to participate on this panel discussion on cell phone use while driving. My name is Rob Latham and I am the Public Affairs Director for The Independent Institute. We are a non-profit, non-political, public policy research and educational organization headquartered here in Oakland, California.
<br /><br />
My role today, as I see it, is two-fold. First, to defend the status quo as someone who uses a cell phone, drives, and sometimes does both at the same time. Second, to share with this panel and this audience some of the research relevant to this issue that some of our nation’s think tanks have produced.
<br /><br />
It’s perfectly legitimate for us to be concerned about the use of new technologies in automobiles because new technologies can lead to distraction, distraction can lead to bad driving, and bad driving can lead to collisions, which imposes costs on other drivers.
<br /><br />
Before I go any further I want to address a claim often made that using a car phone is like driving drunk. That claim is based on a study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine which concluded that cell phone use while driving increased a drivers risk of a collision by four. As the authors of that study noted, “driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit is [also] associated with a relative risk of 4.” Those two statements were interpreted by some journalists and anti-cell phone activists to indicate “that using a cellular telephone is equivalent to driving drunk.”
<br /><br />
But “[t]his is not true” as the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine study wrote later that year, for several reasons. (Redelmeier, Donald A. and Robert J. Tibshirani, “Is Using a Car Phone Like Driving Drunk?” Chance (Spring 1997)). For one, when a driver is intoxicated, the impairment lasts over a continuous period of time. With a cell phone, the driver chooses the length of distraction. (I’m dialing a number, now I’m checking the road ahead of me, now I’m listening to the phone ring, now I’m checking my rearview mirror.) And the greater level of intoxication, the greater the level of impairment and risk.
<br /><br />
By contrast, cell phone use has much in common with tasks many drivers are familiar with, such as driving while tuning your stereo or talking on a CB radio. In those situations, the driver chooses when to be distracted.
<br /><br />
Now when issues such as public safety are discussed sometimes we hear the claim “Well, if we save only one life then it was worth it. If it costs $10 billion, that’s OK because nothing is more precious than one human life.”
<br /><br />
But regulation and legislation have costs too, both in terms of dollars and in terms of lives.
<br /><br />
Another think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has an ongoing study it calls the “Death by Regulation Project” which shows that over-regulation can threaten health and safety, in many cases, with deadly consequences.
<br /><br />
Regulation and legislation also have an effect in terms of the tradeoffs we make when we decide to devote regulatory enforcement and law enforcement resources over here, instead of over here.
<br /><br />
As one of The Independent Institute’s senior fellows, Bruce Benson, pointed out in a study he did called Illicit Drugs & Crime: “Getting tough on drugs has had the inevitable consequence of getting soft on nondrug crimes.” Filling up our prisons with pot smokers means less room for murderers, robbers, and rapists.
<br /><br />
So the issue before us is whether consumers (drivers, non-drivers, cell phone users, non-cell phones users, etc.) would be better off or worse off if we regulated cell phone use in vehicles.
<br /><br />
I’m aware of one study on this issue put out last year by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies that I think is quite good. The authors are Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock.
<br /><br />
We’ve already heard a lot about the costs of permitting drivers to use cell phones in terms of personal injuries and property damage. In their study, Hahn and Tetlock “calculate the costs of cellular phone use in vehicles to be $1.2 billion per year. About half of this $1.2 billion is attributable to the 78 estimated fatalities associated with driver use of cellular phones while the other half represents the costs associated with more minor accidents in which cell phones were a contributing factor.”
<br /><br />
But focusing on the costs attributed to cell phone use while driving is only half useful if we don’t examine the benefits as well.<br /><br />
Some of those benefits include:<br /><br /><br /><br />
*the ability to call ahead if you’re running late, thereby reducing pressure on the driver to speed through traffic,
<br /><br />
*the ability to call on the way home from work to see if anything needs to be picked up from the supermarket, thereby reducing the number of car trips, which helps the environment and reduces traffic congestion, and, of course,
<br /><br />
*the ability to conduct business on the phone during time that would otherwise be spent idling in traffic.
<br /><br /><br /><br />
Let’s also note the benefits we receive from drivers who use their cell phones to report emergencies: car accidents, assaults, robberies, and so on.
<br /><br />
The economists, Hahn and Tetlock, calculate that American consumers place a value on the benefits of cell phone use while driving at about $25 billion. As a result of their cost-benefit analysis, they conclude that “banning drivers from using cell phones is a bad idea.”
<br /><br />
Quoting Hahn and Tetlock again, they write that “the mere existence of a problem does not, by itself, warrant government intervention. . . . For government intervention to be warranted, a strong case needs to be made that the likely economic benefits exceed the costs by a significant amount.”
<br /><br />
In this case, it’s the other way around; the likely costs of a ban would exceed benefits by a significant amount. In other words, if we banned cell phone use by drivers, the return on our regulatory investment would be very poor.
<br /><br />
I want to conclude with a word about accountability. Right now, when a negligent driver crashes into another car, cell phone or not, we can hold the negligent driver civilly liable for the damage caused. That’s the law in California and every other state.
<br /><br />
But if we pass a law banning cell phones, and not only do we not reduce the number of vehicle accidents by a significant amount, but we create a whole host of unforeseen and negative consequences, who will be accountable for that bad law?
<br /><br />
Or let’s assume that even if we have a ban in place, it’s openly violated by drivers who weigh the costs of the fines against the benefits of using their cell phones while driving—we know the type, right?—and they decide the benefits outweigh the costs. And there’s a wreck.
<br /><br />
Do we blame the police for not enforcing the ban? No, Section 845 of the California Code states that: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.”<br /><br />
No, in that situation, the driver is individually responsible. Maybe the driver gets caught using his cell phone while driving, maybe not. Either way, he’s going to be held liable for the damage he caused under the civil, not criminal, justice system. And therefore we’re right back where we started.
<br /><br />
So if that’s the case, then what’s the point of a new law? You can’t legislate common sense, but you can set it free and encourage it.
<br /><br />
How?
<br /><br />
I think some of the recommendations made by Fran Bents of Dynamic Science, Inc., in the study she co-authored for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are excellent. Collect more data, punish violations of inattentive and reckless driving laws “regardless of the causes of such behavior,” and improve driver education.
<br /><br />
The latter is already being done. When I turn on my cell phone it reads on the display “Safety—your most important call.” Drivers education courses are teaching students about cell phone use while driving, even though the state doesn’t require them to. We can mention it in the drivers’ handbook. There’s information on using cell phones while driving on the DMV’s website. And test it on the exam.<br /><br />
Next, shame. Let me quote Patricia Pena, whose daughter was killed in a cell phone-related collision. Mrs. Pena wants “to make [cell phone use while driving] socially unacceptable, to make drivers embarrassed to have a phone at their ear and to make people on the other end threaten to hang up if they know the person they’re talking to is behind the wheel.” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 23, 2000.)
<br /><br />
I believe shame, we can also call it political correctness or peer pressure, is enormously effective but underutilized in many areas. Shame fosters common sense. Shame fosters community.
<br /><br />
Finally, if we’re genuinely concerned about reducing highway accidents, then with all the gasoline taxes drivers are paying in California we ought to be using some of it to fix the roads.
<br /><br />
By most objective measures, the Bay Area is home to some of the most neglected roads in the nation. Studies show that on average Bay Area drivers pay almost $200 per year in auto repair costs caused by poor roads. In addition, Californians rank third in the nation in taxes per vehicle, but dead last when it comes to per capita spending on highways.
<br /><br />
It’s poor public policy when most of the taxes drivers pay are not being used to expand and maintain the transportation systems that most drivers use—and that would be our roads. When our roads are unsafe, the people who travel on those roads suffer property loss and personal injury.
<br /><br />
And if we want safer roads, our spending priorities on transportation have to change, but perhaps that is an issue for another hearing.
<br /><br />
Thank you, Assemblymember Bock. I look forward to exchanging ideas with the other members of this panel and the audience.
Rob Latham, was the Public Affairs Director for The Independent Institute, a scholarly public policy research and education organization in Oakland, CA. Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-17415210325176287922013-08-01T10:17:00.000-07:002013-08-02T12:25:18.933-07:00Zimmerman guilty: On the Killing of Trayvon MartinThe Atlantic<br /><br /><br /><br />
I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to offer some thoughts on the verdict of innocent for George Zimmerman:<br /><br />
1.) Last year -- after Zimmerman was arrested -- I wrote something hoping that he would be convicted. A commenter wrote in to object, saying that arguing for his arrest was justifiable. Arguing for his conviction was not. I acknowledged the point at the time. The wisdom of it seems even more appropriate today.
<br /><br />
2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.
<br /><br />
3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out of the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by a 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible. It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and that Zimmerman then shot him. But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.
<br /><br />
4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right -- trials don't work as strict "moral surrogates." Not everything that is immoral is illegal -- nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished.
<br /><br />
5.) I think you should read everything my friend Jelani Cobb has written about this case.
<br /><br />
6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living.
<br /><br />
An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did -- buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait.
<br /><br />
7.) Circling back to the first point, it's worth remembering that what caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all. This case was really unique because of what happened with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-11336103335046046142013-08-01T10:09:00.002-07:002013-08-02T12:24:03.789-07:00Zimmerman not guilty--"Stop the Zimmerman Debates"National Review<br /><br /><br /><br />
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, popularly known as the Trayvon Martin case, is now a platform on which liberal and conservative advocates make major pronouncements on important issues of the day. However, this perch is a surprisingly rickety one, since the statements made from it usually have little to do with the facts in this sad, sad, sad trial.
<br /><br />
Liberals, for instance, see this entire affair through the Left’s all-encompassing lens of latent white racism and the alleged widespread bigotry that targets blacks in America — fatally so, when it came to 17-year-old Martin. This is all quite interesting and actually might be relevant, save for one crucial fact: Zimmerman is not white.
<br /><br />
As it happens, the 29-year-old Zimmerman is of mixed — essentially biracial — ancestry, much like President Obama. Indeed, it would be as accurate to call Zimmerman Hispanic as it would be to describe Obama as white. Nevertheless, public discussion focuses almost entirely on Zimmerman’s Caucasian roots, much like the notion that Obama is America’s first black president, even though he is, at most, 50 percent black.
<br /><br />
Zimmerman’s mother’s maiden name is Mesa. This reflects her birth in Peru. “He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather — the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him,” Reuters’ Chris Francescani wrote in an eye-opening April 25, 2012 article on Zimmerman’s background.<br /><br />
So, amazingly enough, Zimmerman actually is part black. Regardless, numerous news accounts describe him as “a white Hispanic.” This unusual formulation is about as common as “a white black.”
<br /><br />
Beyond all of these chromosomal specifics, Zimmerman seems to be anything but a racist. He is bilingual and informally served as a translator in his grade school, presumably bridging the English-Spanish language gap between administrators and foreign-born parents.
<br /><br />
As several journalists, not least Reason’s Cathy Young, have demonstrated, Zimmerman might have been eligible for an NAACP Image Award were it not for his calamitous, chance encounter in Sanford, Fla., with the unarmed Martin. Among Zimmerman’s acts of non-racism, he took a black girl to his high school prom. Zimmerman and a black business partner jointly launched an Allstate insurance office in 2004. Zimmerman served as a mentor to disadvantaged black children. He also appeared at a January 8, 2011, public forum at Sanford City Hall. He spoke up there to defend Sherman Ware, a homeless black man who was beaten up by Justin Collison, the son of a white police officer.
<br /><br />
Further diluting the Left’s anti-Zimmerman narrative: He is one of them.
<br /><br />
Zimmerman is a Democrat and an Obama voter. As his brother Robert explained to Breitbart.com, George is “a registered Democrat. He registered as a Hispanic. He kind of did some internal family campaigning for Obama.” Referring to his brother, Robert Zimmerman added: “He was like many young people who thought that the president’s club had been a club of white men since our founding, and that there really wasn’t a good reason for that.”
<br /><br />
Somehow, George Zimmerman — the reputed reincarnation of the late Senator Robert KKK Byrd (D., W.V.) — turns out to be . . . part of Obama’s winning coalition.
<br /><br />
Liberals can holler all they want about white racism. And where such bigotry actually exists, hollering is justified. But white racism played no part in this case, as confirmed by the prosecution’s silence on the matter.
<br /><br />
“I think all of us thought race did not play a role,” Juror B37 told CNN after the trial. Referring to herself and her fellow jurors, she added: “We never had that discussion.”<br /><br />
For their part, conservatives argue this case shows that black kids, especially boys, often run aground when they are reared by single moms. No doubt, when 73 percent of black children are born out of wedlock, trouble almost inevitably follows. This is a perfectly legitimate issue, but it also has nothing to do with this case. TV coverage of this trial showed Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, grieving in the court room, right beside Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father. George Zimmerman also has a mother and father. So, the impact of single motherhood is an important issue. But not here.Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4966223430938884200.post-17876565481884939402013-08-01T10:05:00.001-07:002013-08-02T12:24:41.984-07:00Zimmerman not guilty--"Perfect Neighbor"PJMedia.com<br /><br /><br /><br />
George Zimmerman disappeared after his acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, as low-information news consumers ranted and rioted against his perceived “profile, stalk, and murder” act going unpunished. Martin, the narrative claimed, was “just walking home.” Yet the sequence of events, as borne out by 40 prosecution witnesses, 19 defense witnesses, two medical examiners, a use-of-force expert, and one of the nation’s foremost forensic pathologists specializing in gunshot wounds supports the story George Zimmerman told all along.<br /><br />
Zimmerman stated he behaviorally profiled Martin for “acting like he was on drugs,” and for lurking near the windows of a home that Zimmerman knew had been the site of a recent break-in. Medical examiner Shiping Bao later admitted the possibility that Zimmerman’s story — and hunch — was true per the toxicology results from Martin’s autopsy. Trayvon had smoked marijuana at some point that day, and the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels in his system were high enough that the drug “may have had some effect” on Martin’s behavior.<br /><br />
Nor was Martin “just walking home.” There is a missing four-minute gap between the time Zimmerman lost sight of Martin after he ran and when Martin came up behind Zimmerman and asked: “What you following me for?” Those four minutes were three minutes and 40 seconds longer than Trayvon would have needed to get home and get inside. Instead, he lurked in the darkness watching, a fact confirmed by Trayvon’s friend, Rachel Jeantel.<br /><br />
George Zimmerman in no way “murdered” Trayvon Martin. As forensics and eyewitness accounts bear out, Trayvon Martin was in the act of committing assault with a deadly weapon (aggravated assault with a weapon under Florida law) when Zimmerman was forced to draw his weapon and fire one shot in self-defense. Use-of-Force expert Dennis Root said that Zimmerman “had no choice” but to shoot Martin in self-defense. Root further stated that he — and anyone trained as police officers — would have fired sooner in the attack than Zimmerman did, and would have been legally justified in doing so.<br /><br />
The media has asserted that Zimmerman had a violent past, that he was a man who abused women and fought with police. These claims seem to be greatly exaggerated. Zimmerman and Veronica Zuazo, his former fiancée, each filed restraining orders against one another, but there was no indication that either ever battered the other. Similarly, Zimmerman’s 2005 arrest for pushing an undercover ALE officer who was attempting to arrest a friend at a bar was viewed with skepticism by the court. A judge reduced his sentence and then let him off the hook at a pre-trial diversion program.<br /><br />
Indeed, his legal gun ownership — the fact that Zimmerman was granted a concealed-carry permit — is proof in and of itself that the judicial system found neither claim of violence credible.<br /><br />
“Witness 9,” a female cousin, claimed after Zimmerman’s arrest that he molested her and others, starting when Zimmerman was just 8 years old. The same woman said the Zimmerman family was extremely racist. But neither the molestation claims against George Zimmerman nor the claims of racism — against his tri-racial family — were regarded as credible by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which did not find any evidence to support such claims in their civil-rights investigation.<br /><br />
The picture of Zimmerman painted by his family, friends, and defense team is very much at odds with the prosecution and media’s caricature. Which characterization of Zimmerman is more accurate?<br /><br />
As fate would have it, an accident in Sanford the week after Zimmerman’s “not guilty” verdict gives us a hint of the kind of man George Zimmerman was before he became infamous.<br /><br />
Zimmerman emerged from hiding four days after his acquittal to help a family of four escape an overturned burning vehicle. He even used a fire extinguisher to put the fire out before authorities arrived. These actions are commendable, but what made these “everyday hero” actions exceptional is the fact that Zimmerman risked his life by showing himself in public just a mile from where he shot Trayvon Martin while death threats against him and his family were at their most extreme.<br /><br />
As soon as authorities arrived, Zimmerman spoke briefly to them before leaving the scene. He hasn’t been seen or heard from since.<br /><br />
Preston L. Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17897047481626628916noreply@blogger.com0