Should controversial speakers (on whatever subject) be allowed on college campuses?

I think that college is a place that we go to continue our education, but is also a place where we are presented with controversial topics and issues. If we do not get this exposure, I feel we are doing ourselves a diservice because to shelter ourselves from such matters would be naiive and sheltering. No matter what your cultural or religious beleifs are, being presented with controversial issues, material, or topics will only help you to firm your belief systems, but will also open up a window for you to see into another perspective or point of view. I think it is very important for controversial speakers to be allowed onto college campuses because it gets the students expoesed to what they are going to hear out in the real world. Exposure of any kind is only going to help build us as individuals and diversify the ways in which we think.   

To what extent should advertising aimed at children be regulated by law?

Think back on your day, how many bill boards did you pass on your way home or to work? Did you watch TV? Did you listen to the radio? Or did you read the newspaper or any magazines? All of these examples are sources of advertisements, and usually meet the eye at least one individual that either sees, hears, or reads about them. The most easily impacted of those that witness any of these advertisements would be children. Children are not as conditioned to advertisements as young adolescents, or adults, so they are more tempted to fall for them. The next time you go to the grocery store take a walk down the cereal isle a look where all the sugar filled, fun colored, cereals are located. In all grocery stores these cereals will be on the bottom 3-5 shelves right at eye level with the children.

The children usually recognize the characters that help represent these particular cereals: the rabbit from Trix cereal, the rooster from cocoa puff's cereal, or the leprechaun from the lucky charms cereal. Now think about where these children would have viewed the advertisements for these cereals...TV, and if you monitor it you will find that these commercials are usually on in the mornings, the primary time when children will be viewing. The children grow interest in the cereals through the characters that represent them which leads them to wanting those particular cereals. The same goes for fast food, and the easy example: Ronald McDonald.

He is used to lure children in to wanting to eat at McDonald's. I think that advertisers choose to appeal to children because they are easy targets and are easily influenced, and for the most part, their parents will buy them whatever they want so they will stop crying or throwing a fit. I would like to see this be regulated, but I don't know if it ever will because children make the big corporations too much money. One other solution to this problem would be teaching the parents better ways to control their child's urges, like the NEED for the particular kind of cereal, but thats a whole new discussion topic.

What types of regulations of smoking in public places should the legal system impose?

I believe that smoking, although it is a personal freedom, should be regulated to only being allowed outdoors. Second hand smoke does exist and does have harmful effects on the individuals exposed to it.

Individuals who smoke do not bother me, and I think that smoking is actually a great way for some people to net work with people, and get to know strangers. I would have a problem with smokers if I did not have the option of being separated from them and their toxic smoke producing cancer sticks. As long as I can escape it, I'm alright with it.

As far as other restrictions on smoking, I think that throwing out your cigarette buts should be considered littering and should result in a fine, because it is the same thing as the person who throws out a can of soda, size should not matter in this case...  

Do certain children's toys create social or emotional or other problems?

I think that certain children's toys do have negative emotional, social, and psychological effects on children.  Take Barbie for example, Barbie is promoted towards young girls, of which have interest, and acts like a role model to all women. Barbie is an extremely skinny, tall, large chested woman, than can impact a child in the wrong ways. If Barbie were to represent an actual human being, she would be 9 feet tall, with a waist of somewhere around 7-10 inches.

This can have quite harmful effects on young girls that do not fit the "Barbie" image. Another example would be that of GI Joe, who has progressed in size (muscles) quite drastically in the last 10-15 years. First of all, these toys portray to a child how they should look and act, which is on a large scale, VERY unrealistic.

This can lead to children becoming self conscious of their bodies, which can lead to self disgust or shame. These toys can also bring harm to children as it leads them to believe that must fit the gender stereotypes displayed through advertising, toys, and especially TV. This can lead to complicated thoughts for individuals who do not fit the gender norms, and do not relate to the sexuality norms. Now this may not be until later in life, but this all plays off on the preconditioning by the media, through toys, and expectations of parents.

What impact on the family (or the workplace) have changes in gender roles had?

In the last 50-60 years the gender roles in The U.S have gone through a huge transition. Now days there are more women in the work force competing for the jobs that were once only limited to working men. Men are now becoming stay at home parents taking care of the children while the mother will go out and pursue her college degree, and move onto her career. Both men and women are putting more concern on the household income, rather than on raising their children and spending time with.

Due to the increase in both parents having a daytime or nighttime job children are now being enrolled in daycare centers where they will spend the majority of their day, away from their parents. I find that all of these changes have had both positive and negative effects on the family as a whole. For one, the children are getting effected because they are now spending less time with their parents, and for two, the parents relationship is getting stressed because now both members of the household must hold a job to make ends meet. Positives that have come from the shift in gender roles would be the fact that more women have the opportunity to pursue a college degree, and then a professional career, and that women are also able to reach very high positions in their filed of choice.

Positives for men would have to be the fact that more men are getting acclimated with the kitchen the taking care of the household, as well as getting more in touch with their children and building stronger relationships. I find the gender role shift to stand out with more positives than negatives.

Should children be required to attend school past the age of sixteen?

As we all might be able to attest, education is becoming increasingly important, and is often required in most, if not all job fields. No longer are the days where a person can only have a 8th grade education, or less, and still be competitive in the job market. Now that most of our jobs are being shipped out across sea's, it limits what jobs are left, and the jobs that are left, are being competed upon by many, (highly) qualified individuals. In my opinion, a person would be simply fooling themselves if they did not get a high school diploma, and more so now, a 2-4 year college degree.

I have an aunt who only has a 2 year degree in business, and she is competing with others, who are half her age, that have a 4 year degree, a masters, or a Doctorate degree. Education is important, and although it is expensive, it will certainly pay off well in the end.

Dont be a fool, STAY IN SCHOOL!!!! :0)

Where and how, if at all, should sex education be conducted?

I order to express my opinion, let me tell you what sexual education I received through my schooling experience. The first time sexual education was conducted was when I was in 6th grade, when I would have been around the age of 12 or 13. I was in a Private Catholic School for my 6th grade year, so you can imagine how limited the education was, as the Bible preaches abstinence, and not having sex before marriage. The next time I was exposed to sexual education was not until my 8th grade year in the public school.

Here, we got more in depth on the topics, and the topic of safe sex was spoken of with more clarity.  Then it was 10th grade health class where we learned how to have safe sex, so to prevent any STI's, and of course abstinence was the only option that would protect you 100%  from getting pregnant or receiving STI's. This shows that I received, with all the different years of education, approximately 3/4 to 1 year of sexual education. In my opinion, this is FAR too little exposure to sex ed. As statistics show, teenagers are contacting STI's, and getting pregnant at increasingly younger ages. I currently have 6 classmates, that have, or will soon have their first child, and their all under the age of 21!!!

This is quite alarming to me. SO, to get back to the focus of this discussion topic, I believe we as students, should begin receiving sexual education as early as 4th or 5th grade, and should continue to receive it throughout the rest of our middle school and high school years, if not every year, every other, or every couple of years. Sex is something that is natural. It is something that we cannot, due to our nature, help but to be curious about, or to crave, and depend on. I think it would be naive to think that children are not experimenting at younger, and younger ages. I also think that instead of placing so much attention on abstinence, which I DO still agree with, we must talk more in depth about safe sex, because honestly, kids, teenagers, adults, we ALL are curious, and end up experimenting at one time or another..

The Impossible Love

She knew she loved him, but he was a taken man. They spent every morning together listening to the city life outside the window of their condo. Every night they would watch T.V together, and he would sometimes let her cuddle up close to him. After he got off of work they would go on walks for hours, he would talk, and she would listen to his every word. Thursdays were especially good days; bath day, and he would give her a bath using only the finest soaps for her gentle skin. As the days went on, their relationship began to dwindle, and he became distracted by the new baby. She knew the relationship would never last, as he was a married man, and she was his dog.

~Do certain children's toys create social or emotional or other problems?~

I think there certainly are children's toys out there that do cause social and emotional problems. I know that video games, and similar games on the internet are becoming very popular amongst the teenagers, and really everyone alike. In my opinion the game Call of Duty can have a negative affect on individuals who play it because it can become addicting, which results in the player continuing to play, and choosing to sit behind the computer screen instead of going out with some friends. I also think this game is very violent which can imprint negative, dangerous, or violent ideas into the players mind, and result in the same type of actions.

     

If a person spends most of their time inside playing video games, and not communicating with actual people, in person, it could result in social problems, and not knowing how to effecting communicate with others. Being that this game involves a lot of killing, as the player is in control of a gun, or other such weapons. I think that this can cause emotional damage as some of these games are pretty graphic. Now I know that not all children's games are like the Call of Duty, but I think that if a child is allowed to spend more time with their video games, or other toys, and are not spending time with their friends, or other kids their age, that it may result in social, emotional, or other problems. I respect those out there that do choose to endulge, and enjoy playing these games :0)

To what extent should bilingual education be offered in public schools?

I recieved my Elementary education from St. John's Baptist Catholic School in Jordan, Minnesota. Here I studdied many different subjects and learned quite a bit. When recalling all the subjuects that I studdied, I remember that a second language was not as enforced as I would have hoped it to be. To my knowledge, we were given two, maybe three years of spanish classes. In these classes our teacher did her absolute best to learn the information to us all, but as I was not in the place to take my calsses very seriously, I retained very little when the class was over. I did not recieve any second language education in Middle School, which was for my 7th and 8th grade years.

When I started High School as a Freshman, we were required to take Spanish I, and this I was very happy with, my teacher was able to get through to me, and I enjoyed learning about the culture. However, once you had completed one year of spanish, that was the only requirement. I think that learning a second language, especially Spanish is becoming increasing important. I think that second language education should be as enforced as any other subject in school. I think it to be a very crucuial tool for any chosen proffesion, as our communities are becoming more and more diverse. I would like to see more focus on second languages because I believe it will result in a more well-rounded individuals, and also, it promotes communication with classmates of other ethnicities, and even in their native languages. I will be exposing my children to at least two other languages, other than english, and I will suggest that they take other languages on top of that.

Should homosexuals be permitted to serve in the armed forces?

I absolutely think that homosexuals should be permitted to serve in the armed forces. Refusing them this right, is like refusing an African American the right to go to school and get an education. If you did not allow them this right, it would be treating them less of a human being. We live in the country where all men are created equal, and all should be allowed to exercise their rights. I think about whether or not I would want to serve in the armed forces, and very quickly I know my response, No. There is no desire inside of me, that wants to serve in the armed forces. So, if someone else wanted to take my place, and they happen to be of a homosexual orientation, go right ahead! This also brings me to ask the question, do we think being homosexual is a disease, or in any way a faulty genetic that might keep someone from performing to their optimum in the service? Our orientation makes no more judgement on our character, than the color of our skin. I also want to ask if this question is directed toward the population that consider themselves lesbian? When did our sexual orientation come to be a judgement of our physical abilities, or whether or not we are worth being allowed to participate in certain activities? This makes me think of a famous quote by Martin Luther King Jr. I feel this quote really resonates with this discussion question.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
-Martin Luther King Jr.-

Should News Paper Reporters Be Required To Reveal Their Sources?

It's 7:00 in the morning, and you make your way to the kitchen to heat the pot of coffee. Right as you are turning on the stove, the mail man walks by, tossing your daily Newspaper at the base of your front door. You continue your routine and go outside to grab the Newspaper so you have something to read while you eat your breakfast. On the front page, you see the headline of an article that speaks of an amazing new discovery: "Loose Weight Without Working Out!" Taken by the title of the article, you sit down with your cup of coffee and enjoy yourself some light reading. The article goes on to explain how scientists have discovered a new chemical combination, that when ingested, will begin to eat the access fat on your body. You are directed to take the pill daily, and will see results instantly. The best part about this discovery, is the fact that you will not have to work out to see results. The question is: do you quick run out and buy the first bottle of the new pills that you can find, or do you instead do some research to see whether the information is credible, if the source of where the report got her information is someone of significance. I would say, from my aberration of friends and family members taking pills like this, that many people would be in the car, at the store, and in the checkout line, before they even finished the article about the amazing new discovery. This brings to one of my points, that people listen to what they want to hear. The Newspaper is just honoring the laws of supply and demand. What the reader wants, the Newspaper will produce. Do you really think its a coincidence that with a large amount of our population being overweight or obese, and having many health problems, that the Newspapers and Magazines are filled with articles and advertisements promoting new healthy ways of living, or easy ways to loose weight fast? They are giving us what we want. People don't want to read the truth, because the truth most times is too hard to handle. Instead, they tweak the truth to make it sound more appealing to the reader. I believe that until WE start demanding accurate information, or credible information in our Newspapers, then we can trust what we read and not have to worry about whether or not what is in the Newspaper is actually supported by fact.  

The Man With The Golden Voice

I thought the video was a beautiful sight of a mother, Julia,  and son, Ted, reuniting for the first time in 10 years. I really appreciated the fact that his mother wanted to keep him in touch with his faith and help him to revitalize his hope and belief. It truly did pay off and it just goes to show you that with a little hope and faith, Anything can happen! I was pretty disappointed to discover, as I read on, that big name TV shows were intervening with the Julia and Ted's reconnection, just so they could make a big story out of it. I do not know what Julia's intentions were, upon reuniting with her son, but from the video I saw true emotion and happiness in their faces and in their eyes. After all the conflict of the two TV shows wanting to get their hands in on this terrific reconnection, Ted has flourished being given a few commercial gigs, and now having a major airing of a KRAFT mac and cheese commercial. I think that with all that has happened to both Julia and Ted, there shows signs of light being at the end of the tunnel.

Should Pornography Be Restricted By Law?

When I think of pornography, I think of the internet and how it makes pornography very accessible to just about anyone. Anyone who owns a computer, has the option of looking up pornography at any time of the day, for as long they want, on as many sights as they want. I believe pornography can become addicting, and I think people are easily influenced by what they witness on the internet. I think there could be restrictions on it, and I think that might be a healthy thing, but I cant imagine how we would go about restricting it. Being that it is so accessible, how could we begin to set limitations on who can obtain it? It could be restricted in all stores, so that people would no longer be able to purchase it at local gas stations. It could also be banned from movie stores, so that customers could not rent the videos whenever they wanted. This brings me to ask the question: What about the Internet? How could we keep people from viewing pornography on the internet? The internet is something that is free, something that is available at our very fingertips. I have heard that in China and Japan, internet sites such as Google are banned amongst the community. Is it possible that we could do the same to pornographic sites? Although I think it should be restricted, I don't think it ever will be restricted. I believe pornography portrays sex in a superficial way, and can lead people into thinking that what it portrays is real. I support the restriction, and I hope it can become less of a problem amongst our population.