Maybe I am being cruel, but I can't stand elderly drivers. Whenever I am driving and someone in front of me is holding up traffic, nine times out of ten it is an elderly person. Along with clogging the roads with their snail like driving, elderly drivers somehow manage to park their cars in places no one would have thought possible. See for yourself-- http://wbztv.com/local/wal.mart.danvers.2.1027911.html . I couldn't do that if i tried. A lot of the time the driver does not even realize what they have just done. You might call that shock, I call it being old.
Would you want your grandparents driving you somewhere? My Nana is 80 years old and i am more than happy to give her a ride or pick up anything she needs and would rather it be that way than have her be driving. I'll pick up everything she needs in one trip with no complaints to keep her and other drivers safe. In a sense, elderly drivers are controlling a speeding metal object that can drive through buildings. Now I'm not saying that just because your old means you shouldn't drive, but there should be some sort of test at say, 70 years old to renew your license. If you pass the driving test once and gain a lifetimes experience of driving you can pass it again, right? You don't see grandpa trying to join in on some back yard football games because he can't. Playing football and driving are clearly not the same but they both involve reflexes and at least some kind of movement. When your that old your body just isn't the same. I know from watching my grandmother struggle and then ask me to open a liter of soda. If you cant twist a cap then how can someone grip a steering wheel?
Another driving test when your older isn't one to keep you from driving, it is one to prove that you can. Unless someone fears they wont pass the test, there should be no objection to taking another driving test. Next time you sympathize with elderly drivers, think if it was your younger sibling who was in a crosswalk.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Gun Control by Conor Foley
Who decided that EVERYONE in our nation needs guns? I want to know exactly what the idea behind the making of this amendment. Ever since our founding fathers made it legal in the 2nd Amendment for citizens to "bear arms," it has made our country a much more dangerous place to live in.
What good comes from guns? The answer is absolutely nothing. Some critics may say it is for "protection" from burglars, muggers, etc. But if guns weren't sold to citizens in the first place, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with them. Mase or a baseball bat work perfectly fine as a defense against an attacker. I personally will never buy a gun.
With guns, crimes such as robberies and rapes increase drastically. You are completely helpless if someone points a gun in your face. A gun symbolizes fear, aggression, and death. Why would we want that in our nation? Why would we want that around our familes? There is nothing scarier than the thought of death. Death can come very fast and very abrubtly just from one pull of the trigger. It can ruin lives physically and emotionally.
Anyone can get a hold of a gun in America. What happens if someone with an anger management problem gets their hands on a gun? Would you want that person around you carrying a gun, knowing that they could overreact and snap if even the slightest thing upsets them?
The United Kingdom has absolutely no firearms. Not even their law enforcement carries a gun. As a result, their crime rate is dramatically lower than ours. If it's working for them, why not us? Why don't we eliminate guns completely?
The very existance of guns makes each and every person more cautious. People make sure they lock their doors to their houses and cars. Barely anyone walks around at night in fear of an attacker. We can stop living in fear with the elimination of guns.
What good comes from guns? The answer is absolutely nothing. Some critics may say it is for "protection" from burglars, muggers, etc. But if guns weren't sold to citizens in the first place, we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with them. Mase or a baseball bat work perfectly fine as a defense against an attacker. I personally will never buy a gun.
With guns, crimes such as robberies and rapes increase drastically. You are completely helpless if someone points a gun in your face. A gun symbolizes fear, aggression, and death. Why would we want that in our nation? Why would we want that around our familes? There is nothing scarier than the thought of death. Death can come very fast and very abrubtly just from one pull of the trigger. It can ruin lives physically and emotionally.
Anyone can get a hold of a gun in America. What happens if someone with an anger management problem gets their hands on a gun? Would you want that person around you carrying a gun, knowing that they could overreact and snap if even the slightest thing upsets them?
The United Kingdom has absolutely no firearms. Not even their law enforcement carries a gun. As a result, their crime rate is dramatically lower than ours. If it's working for them, why not us? Why don't we eliminate guns completely?
The very existance of guns makes each and every person more cautious. People make sure they lock their doors to their houses and cars. Barely anyone walks around at night in fear of an attacker. We can stop living in fear with the elimination of guns.
Piracy
by David Chan
There are three traditional ways to watch a movie. You can go to see it in the theaters, and buy or rent it on dvd. However, with the advent of peer-to-peer file sharing, the internet literate population is finding an alternative way to view movies. Sharing of copyrighted movies is of course illegal, but the method by which the MPAA, Motion picture Association of America, is going about in dealing with the situation is deplorable and foolish. The MPAA has in the past sued individuals for sharing and downloading pirated movies especially those unsuspecting college students. Currently the MPAA has a deal with UMass where the internet usage of students is monitors so that any copyright infringement is reported to the MPAA. To combat cam recording in theaters, the MPAA introduced frisking and large fines. The MPAA has event begun to indoctrinate children to copyright laws and piracy by sponsoring lectures on the subject for the Boy Scouts.
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/04/how-the-mpaa/
Instead of threatening people by introducing ridiculous fines and having movie goer suffer the humiliations of frisks, maybe the MPAA should focus on offering a movie going experience that supersedes the convenience of copyright infringement. The methods the MPAA have been using are largely ineffective. They continue to draw more disapproval because they treat the movie watching masses as children that don't know any better than to steal. They set examples by slapping large fines on people and they attempt to deter us with threats. If anything, the actions of the MPAA have only encouraged more people to pirate and infringe. Most people would rather watch a movie they deem worthy at the theaters than on a 22" computer monitor. Until the MPAA have figured out what they're doing wrong, copyright infringement will continue to grow undeterred and the MPAA will continue to lose money.
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/03/mpaa_piracy.html
http://www.tuxick.net/pics/piracy2.jpg
There are three traditional ways to watch a movie. You can go to see it in the theaters, and buy or rent it on dvd. However, with the advent of peer-to-peer file sharing, the internet literate population is finding an alternative way to view movies. Sharing of copyrighted movies is of course illegal, but the method by which the MPAA, Motion picture Association of America, is going about in dealing with the situation is deplorable and foolish. The MPAA has in the past sued individuals for sharing and downloading pirated movies especially those unsuspecting college students. Currently the MPAA has a deal with UMass where the internet usage of students is monitors so that any copyright infringement is reported to the MPAA. To combat cam recording in theaters, the MPAA introduced frisking and large fines. The MPAA has event begun to indoctrinate children to copyright laws and piracy by sponsoring lectures on the subject for the Boy Scouts.
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/04/how-the-mpaa/
Instead of threatening people by introducing ridiculous fines and having movie goer suffer the humiliations of frisks, maybe the MPAA should focus on offering a movie going experience that supersedes the convenience of copyright infringement. The methods the MPAA have been using are largely ineffective. They continue to draw more disapproval because they treat the movie watching masses as children that don't know any better than to steal. They set examples by slapping large fines on people and they attempt to deter us with threats. If anything, the actions of the MPAA have only encouraged more people to pirate and infringe. Most people would rather watch a movie they deem worthy at the theaters than on a 22" computer monitor. Until the MPAA have figured out what they're doing wrong, copyright infringement will continue to grow undeterred and the MPAA will continue to lose money.
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/03/mpaa_piracy.html
http://www.tuxick.net/pics/piracy2.jpg
Madi Vivian- Gay Marraige
Today, it seems as though the topic of gay marriage is very talked about. Aside from being extremely popular—people also seem to still be arguing about it; therefore making it extremely controversial. I, personally, believe that if two people are in love or want to settle down with each other by “tying the knot”, then they should be granted that ability, no matter what their sex is.
Throughout history, things like abortion and women’s rights and, now, gay marriage, have been extremely controversial—but when considering, do the people who are against gay marriage have a real argument? The only argument that I usually hear from people against the gay community is that “it is just not right for the same sex to be together” or that “G-d meant for a male and female to be together—not both”. I laugh when I hear this.
Two of my best friends are gay. They are the nicest, funniest, and most down to earth people I know. But this isn’t because they are “gay”. It’s just because AS A PERSON, each individually are great. Growing up in a tight community—which doesn’t accept gays as easily—it was very hard for each of them to accept even themselves as what they are. I couldn’t fathom the fact that someone may argue against their happiness.
A person’s sexuality is like a straight person having a certain “taste” in the opposite sex. You cannot change the fact that you may like another male or female. The people that are trying to take away/ are against gays having the ability to marry, to me, are evil. Getting married is a persons’ decision, and if two people want to spend the rest of their lives with eachother—then, no matter their gender—they should be granted that ability.
Throughout history, things like abortion and women’s rights and, now, gay marriage, have been extremely controversial—but when considering, do the people who are against gay marriage have a real argument? The only argument that I usually hear from people against the gay community is that “it is just not right for the same sex to be together” or that “G-d meant for a male and female to be together—not both”. I laugh when I hear this.
Two of my best friends are gay. They are the nicest, funniest, and most down to earth people I know. But this isn’t because they are “gay”. It’s just because AS A PERSON, each individually are great. Growing up in a tight community—which doesn’t accept gays as easily—it was very hard for each of them to accept even themselves as what they are. I couldn’t fathom the fact that someone may argue against their happiness.
A person’s sexuality is like a straight person having a certain “taste” in the opposite sex. You cannot change the fact that you may like another male or female. The people that are trying to take away/ are against gays having the ability to marry, to me, are evil. Getting married is a persons’ decision, and if two people want to spend the rest of their lives with eachother—then, no matter their gender—they should be granted that ability.
Stanley Tam
Every high school student, at some point, will tell their friends that they will never join a fraternity or a sorority. They think that these groups are full of “fake” friends and in order to obtain them, you have to pay a due. Simply said, it is like buying friends. Likely, you would hear them say “only losers with no friends join Greek life”. Stereotypes and controversial matters are always involved within these groups. Most people think that people who like to party and have fun will decide to become apart of it and those who are fuck up their academics because of the partying. I believe there are too many negative stereotypes involving Greek life.
Until you become familiar with one, you will then be able to acknowledge the family aspect of it.
In order to become a part of the family, you must complete a pledging process. It is true that the pledging process can be seen as harsh and can even consider as being hazing, but this is not necessarily true. Everything a respectable fraternity or sorority does has been experienced by a actives when they were pledges themselves. It is safe to know that you are not alone; you are not the only one experiencing this type of treatment. These types of events will most likely have a meaning behind it, and in order to become a part of the family, you must learn the lessons that are taught behind them, even if they might seem like hazing.
I have friends in a fraternity and they tell me stories about the brotherhood they share. He has brothers who treat him like he is blood. They care, respect, and love him. He tells me that it is not mainly about parties
Until you become familiar with one, you will then be able to acknowledge the family aspect of it.
In order to become a part of the family, you must complete a pledging process. It is true that the pledging process can be seen as harsh and can even consider as being hazing, but this is not necessarily true. Everything a respectable fraternity or sorority does has been experienced by a actives when they were pledges themselves. It is safe to know that you are not alone; you are not the only one experiencing this type of treatment. These types of events will most likely have a meaning behind it, and in order to become a part of the family, you must learn the lessons that are taught behind them, even if they might seem like hazing.
I have friends in a fraternity and they tell me stories about the brotherhood they share. He has brothers who treat him like he is blood. They care, respect, and love him. He tells me that it is not mainly about parties
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Emily Best- Fox News Isn't News
All you need to do is watch the Fox News channel to fully understand what I am about to talk about. If just watching Fox’s extremely biased anchors banter doesn't convince you that Fox News isn't actually news, then I’ll refer you to watching a documentary called "Outfoxed", which shows over an hour and a half of reasons why Fox News is basically just right wing propaganda and has absolutely no news value. Fox News Network is terrible... They claim to be "Fair and Balanced" but show an overwhelming bias towards the Republican party in political stories. Fox News even just LIES on its news network. It exaggerates claims, leaves information out, or just doesn't cover entire stories. Fox News solely focuses on the negative things that occur within the Democratic party in the United States.
It’s really sad that a news network would do something like this. If one news network can get away with blatantly lying to its viewers, who’s to say the other news networks aren’t lying as well? It just makes me feel like I can’t trust anything. Fox News should be ashamed.
Now let me say this, there is nothing wrong with biased news shows. I love The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, which are both left wing biased. However, those shows tell people they are biased. They don’t claim to be giving people “Fair and Balanced” news, and they aren’t an entire network. If Fox News wants to be a right winged propaganda network, that’s fine. They just should let people know that the way they cover stories have a right wing view to them, and that some of their facts may be a little exaggerated. It really pains me to know that there are people in this nation that wake up every morning, watch Fox News, and believe everything that Fox News says. And because of that, they have little support for our president because of the exaggerated claims that Fox News has made, and they have little support for Obama’s new policies.
It’s really sad that a news network would do something like this. If one news network can get away with blatantly lying to its viewers, who’s to say the other news networks aren’t lying as well? It just makes me feel like I can’t trust anything. Fox News should be ashamed.
Now let me say this, there is nothing wrong with biased news shows. I love The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, which are both left wing biased. However, those shows tell people they are biased. They don’t claim to be giving people “Fair and Balanced” news, and they aren’t an entire network. If Fox News wants to be a right winged propaganda network, that’s fine. They just should let people know that the way they cover stories have a right wing view to them, and that some of their facts may be a little exaggerated. It really pains me to know that there are people in this nation that wake up every morning, watch Fox News, and believe everything that Fox News says. And because of that, they have little support for our president because of the exaggerated claims that Fox News has made, and they have little support for Obama’s new policies.
Hai Dinh - Homelessness
When I was younger, I used to live in Dorchester. If you ever go south towards Boston and take exit 15 to Columbia Road, there is this popular intersection with at least one or two homeless people standing with a Dunkin’ Donuts cup in there hand, walking up and down the street, begging for money when the lights are red. The homeless man or woman usually passes by the cars that are turning left because there is a small sidewalk that they are able stand on. I noticed that whenever my father was driving, he never gave them a penny but whenever my mother drove, she always gave them some change. Recently, I was driving and sitting in the passenger seat was my father. When I pulled up to a homeless person, I began to reach for some change and roll down the windows but my father raised his voice and said, “Hai, what are you doing? Don’t give him any money because he won’t use it for what you think he will use it for.” I ended up not giving the homeless man change because of what my father told me.
Before this incident involving my father, I used to commute by subway frequently and there would always be homeless beggars sitting on the benches, shaking their cups with that sincere look in there face that made you feel so bad for them, you had to give them some change. I always spared some change for any homeless person I came across. One time, I even put a $5 bill in a man’s cup and the look he gave me, made me feel great inside. It made my day whenever I gave a homeless person some change. But recently, I was hanging out with some friends and they advised me not to give them any money because all the money will go to liquor and drugs, not food.
How does my father and friends know for a fact that all the money they collect go to drugs and alcohol? What if a person lost their home or job and were forced to live on the streets? I believe that everyone needs help one way or another. The world would be a better place if people could help lend a hand to people in need. It doesn’t have to involve money. People could give homeless people food or a beverage if they think that the money will go to alcohol and drugs. Even if a homeless person used the money to purchase alcohol and drugs, we need to acknowledge that they need help. For instance, we often spend money on items we don’t necessarily need so why can’t we put the money to good use and spare some change to a person in need?
Before this incident involving my father, I used to commute by subway frequently and there would always be homeless beggars sitting on the benches, shaking their cups with that sincere look in there face that made you feel so bad for them, you had to give them some change. I always spared some change for any homeless person I came across. One time, I even put a $5 bill in a man’s cup and the look he gave me, made me feel great inside. It made my day whenever I gave a homeless person some change. But recently, I was hanging out with some friends and they advised me not to give them any money because all the money will go to liquor and drugs, not food.
How does my father and friends know for a fact that all the money they collect go to drugs and alcohol? What if a person lost their home or job and were forced to live on the streets? I believe that everyone needs help one way or another. The world would be a better place if people could help lend a hand to people in need. It doesn’t have to involve money. People could give homeless people food or a beverage if they think that the money will go to alcohol and drugs. Even if a homeless person used the money to purchase alcohol and drugs, we need to acknowledge that they need help. For instance, we often spend money on items we don’t necessarily need so why can’t we put the money to good use and spare some change to a person in need?
Brittany Koondel Consequences of Cheating
In high school many students cheat because of the pressure of doing good and getting into good colleges. If your caught the consequences aren't that harsh. Teachers often will not report it to the principal but they will sometimes give the student a zero for that assignment. I have even seen teachers allow students to retake the test they cheated on and give them a second chance. I don't think the consequences of cheating in high school are harsh enough because if students can get by knowing they didn't get caught they will most likely continue doing it for the rest of their life, it can lead into a cycle of not being able to get by without cheating. If students in high school know they can get away with it without the consequences being too bad then they will never learn their lesson.
There is a huge difference between cheating in high school and in college that many people don't know of. In high school teachers may not care as much because high school students are usually minors which means they cant get in that much trouble anyway, in college your an adult which means you would have to take the responsibility of an adult. In high school teachers are supposed to be preparing their students for college but cheating in college could give you a bad reputation with teachers that could be helping you with recommendations and internships in the future, if students know the consequences of cheating in high school aren't that bad there is no reason they wouldn't do it in college, especially when i class has up to 300 people in it they think it is impossible to be caught by a professor.
I think cheating is never acceptable no matter what the circumstances are. Taking the chance, to me isn't worth a consequence that can change the rest of your life. It can get you kicked out of college it makes you seem like a dishonest person. Especially if your in college you as well as you parents probably worked hard to pay for your education and get you where you are. You are wasting their money if you aren't going to give all your effort into your work. You are also taking away the opportunity of someone else who tried very hard to get to the place your at. Although the outcome of cheating is different for high school students then college students I think the punishment should be the same because cheating is cheating and there's no way of getting around it.
There is a huge difference between cheating in high school and in college that many people don't know of. In high school teachers may not care as much because high school students are usually minors which means they cant get in that much trouble anyway, in college your an adult which means you would have to take the responsibility of an adult. In high school teachers are supposed to be preparing their students for college but cheating in college could give you a bad reputation with teachers that could be helping you with recommendations and internships in the future, if students know the consequences of cheating in high school aren't that bad there is no reason they wouldn't do it in college, especially when i class has up to 300 people in it they think it is impossible to be caught by a professor.
I think cheating is never acceptable no matter what the circumstances are. Taking the chance, to me isn't worth a consequence that can change the rest of your life. It can get you kicked out of college it makes you seem like a dishonest person. Especially if your in college you as well as you parents probably worked hard to pay for your education and get you where you are. You are wasting their money if you aren't going to give all your effort into your work. You are also taking away the opportunity of someone else who tried very hard to get to the place your at. Although the outcome of cheating is different for high school students then college students I think the punishment should be the same because cheating is cheating and there's no way of getting around it.
Andrew Ricketts
Music Education in Schools
In the past couple of years, more and more school districts across the country have been removing their instrumental music programs and cutting education of the arts and music out of the programs they offer. Budget cuts and the added crutch of the present day economy has made this a very common occurrence in specifically high schools. I think this is a terrible loss for young adults of America who want to play music and learn as much about it as they can. If programs keep being cut, soon enough more and more raw talent of kids who should certainly continue with music will really be wasted.
I've been playing musical instruments since before i could walk. I played the trumpet for many years and continue to do so, I've studied and played drums in school bands from 5 years ago up through now, with drumset currently as my major course of study, and I have self taught myself to be slightly proficient on guitar and bass as well. Playing a musical instrument is such a truly unique thing that you can do. In addition to be able to do it in an ensemble is an extra special things. The students in school instrumental music programs gain so many valuable leadership skills, and lessons in working with other people and groups that go so far to help them in the future. Tons of statistics have also shown how it positively affects students grades in school, and that if they have a long committed history to a music program, it looks great on a college application too. I couldn't agree with all these claims more because for an out of state student I'm sure my musical extra activities helped me to get accepted into the schools I applied to.
A few years ago around Christmas time my parents started asking me what I wanted for gifts. I took a look around the house and really thought to myself. "I have way too much junk as it is, why do I need to get greedy and get more useless gifts just for me?" So I told my mother to spend about half the money she usually would on my gifts, and send it to VH1's Save The Music Foundation instead. I wanted to give back in someway, so every holiday season since I have sent them money to donate to a great cause of keeping music in schools. It's not worth it for some great talented young musicians to go unrecognized because they can't find an organized group of peers to play with. Also music itself is such an art form that still needs to be taught so it can be sustained through generations to come. Music education really should be kept in schools, and people need to start showing their support of these schools and a music program or music will just keep getting cut and the kids, in a sense just won't have a place to play and learn about music anymore.
In the past couple of years, more and more school districts across the country have been removing their instrumental music programs and cutting education of the arts and music out of the programs they offer. Budget cuts and the added crutch of the present day economy has made this a very common occurrence in specifically high schools. I think this is a terrible loss for young adults of America who want to play music and learn as much about it as they can. If programs keep being cut, soon enough more and more raw talent of kids who should certainly continue with music will really be wasted.
I've been playing musical instruments since before i could walk. I played the trumpet for many years and continue to do so, I've studied and played drums in school bands from 5 years ago up through now, with drumset currently as my major course of study, and I have self taught myself to be slightly proficient on guitar and bass as well. Playing a musical instrument is such a truly unique thing that you can do. In addition to be able to do it in an ensemble is an extra special things. The students in school instrumental music programs gain so many valuable leadership skills, and lessons in working with other people and groups that go so far to help them in the future. Tons of statistics have also shown how it positively affects students grades in school, and that if they have a long committed history to a music program, it looks great on a college application too. I couldn't agree with all these claims more because for an out of state student I'm sure my musical extra activities helped me to get accepted into the schools I applied to.
A few years ago around Christmas time my parents started asking me what I wanted for gifts. I took a look around the house and really thought to myself. "I have way too much junk as it is, why do I need to get greedy and get more useless gifts just for me?" So I told my mother to spend about half the money she usually would on my gifts, and send it to VH1's Save The Music Foundation instead. I wanted to give back in someway, so every holiday season since I have sent them money to donate to a great cause of keeping music in schools. It's not worth it for some great talented young musicians to go unrecognized because they can't find an organized group of peers to play with. Also music itself is such an art form that still needs to be taught so it can be sustained through generations to come. Music education really should be kept in schools, and people need to start showing their support of these schools and a music program or music will just keep getting cut and the kids, in a sense just won't have a place to play and learn about music anymore.
Gay Marriage by: Emily Jacobs
I think that gay marriage is not an issue that can be split into either right or wrong. Debates focus on legalizing gay marriage so that unions are recognized by states, which I support, but I think that realistically there is no compromise in sight. This argument is occurring between two different ideologies. Separation of church and state was mandated for a reason- there is no compromise between religion and law. It is not feasible to tell a person that their choice of religion, or their choice not to believe, is wrong. A person can believe that a homosexual’s soul is damned to hell because sexual relations “should” occur between a man and a woman, but a person can also believe that there is no distinction between the love of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Although I believe that there is not a realistic solution in the near future, I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Aside from the religious opposition commonly faced by the homosexual community, there are many benefits to legalizing gay marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexuals, including tax breaks, a recognized union, increased sexual security, and improved psychological well-being. Along with benefits to the relationship, if a homosexual couple has or adopts a child, there are benefits to the family structure if gay marriage is legalized. Children with married parents tend to perform better academically, participate in less criminal behavior, experience less poverty, and experience less abuse. I do not believe that there is a valid reason to deny these benefits to homosexuals and their families, but I cannot deny those that oppose gay marriage their beliefs. I think that there are solutions for those that oppose due to ignorance or lack of education, and those that are strongly religious or conservative should practice tolerance, but neither is highly likely.
Although I believe that there is not a realistic solution in the near future, I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Aside from the religious opposition commonly faced by the homosexual community, there are many benefits to legalizing gay marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexuals, including tax breaks, a recognized union, increased sexual security, and improved psychological well-being. Along with benefits to the relationship, if a homosexual couple has or adopts a child, there are benefits to the family structure if gay marriage is legalized. Children with married parents tend to perform better academically, participate in less criminal behavior, experience less poverty, and experience less abuse. I do not believe that there is a valid reason to deny these benefits to homosexuals and their families, but I cannot deny those that oppose gay marriage their beliefs. I think that there are solutions for those that oppose due to ignorance or lack of education, and those that are strongly religious or conservative should practice tolerance, but neither is highly likely.
Clayton Miller Religion
I dont think religion needs to exist. I was raised as a Catholic, I went to church often and celebrated Easter and Christmas and went to CCD for years. But as I got older I looked into religion in general and didnt see anything that good about it. Maybe its because I am a mainly logical thinker but I cant read most of the things I see in religion and believe them. No matter what someone tells me there is no way I can believe that an entire flood covered the Earth and a man built a boat and somehow got two of every animal on it to save them. But its not just believing my own religion that makes me think it doesnt need to exist. It is mostly what religion does/has done.
Ive started to realize that all religons create more harm than they do good. I think that religions are holding us back scientifically and making our race less advanced. For example, the whole stem cell research debate. If we pursued this research we could have the chance to give a person who is confined to a wheelchair the ability to walk again. But have we done that yet? No. Why? Because it isnt "Christain-like" to do so. I think denying someone that chance to walk isnt "Christain-like."
Also religion causes violence. Almost every war ever fought in the history of man was fought in the name of some god or fought because someone didnt practice some religion. If you need examples there are many. The Crusades, the genocide of the witch hunts in the 13th century and even the killing of Native Americans was done because they did not practice a certain religion or do what the church wanted. Even now we are fighting a war with people who are so blinded by their beliefs that they kill themselves thinking they automatically go to a heaven for it. But at the same time in Christianity killing yourself is an unforgivalbe sin. Not only do religions induce violence but they dont even add up to anything logical. That is why I believe that religions do more harm to society than good. They are a way to cause problems, not solve them. We would be better without them.
Ive started to realize that all religons create more harm than they do good. I think that religions are holding us back scientifically and making our race less advanced. For example, the whole stem cell research debate. If we pursued this research we could have the chance to give a person who is confined to a wheelchair the ability to walk again. But have we done that yet? No. Why? Because it isnt "Christain-like" to do so. I think denying someone that chance to walk isnt "Christain-like."
Also religion causes violence. Almost every war ever fought in the history of man was fought in the name of some god or fought because someone didnt practice some religion. If you need examples there are many. The Crusades, the genocide of the witch hunts in the 13th century and even the killing of Native Americans was done because they did not practice a certain religion or do what the church wanted. Even now we are fighting a war with people who are so blinded by their beliefs that they kill themselves thinking they automatically go to a heaven for it. But at the same time in Christianity killing yourself is an unforgivalbe sin. Not only do religions induce violence but they dont even add up to anything logical. That is why I believe that religions do more harm to society than good. They are a way to cause problems, not solve them. We would be better without them.
Women's Rise
By: Greg Modzelewski
As we move into the future, there is a louder calling by women for women to be equal to men in every way, including the workplace. This is obviously contrary to the more traditional "stay at home mom" persona that people had been so accustomed to. I was reading an article in TIME magazine that actually had me thinking about this subject. The article raised my eyebrows at points. It said that women to men ratio in the workplace is going to be even within a few years. It also had shown how children and men are affected by this, such as there are more "stay at home dads", and moms are "bringing home the beacon".
So when i stopped to think about it i was left confused. On one hand i feel like women have every right to do, and be, anything they want. It's the woman's right. But on the other hand if the father and the mother are both working, what about the children. I feel like people try to blame things such as tv and video games as the reason there's a disconnect with even our own children, but we don't stop to think that it could possibly be the fact that hard working families (one with both parents working full time jobs) might never see their parents.
My personal experience with this is with my mother going to college because she decided she wanted to do something with her life, which i respect her tremendously for. However, since she graduated and got her job, she hasn't really been in the picture. There has definitely been a falling out.
So this just leaves me wondering how their could be tight knit family without there being at least a single parent watching over the children?
As we move into the future, there is a louder calling by women for women to be equal to men in every way, including the workplace. This is obviously contrary to the more traditional "stay at home mom" persona that people had been so accustomed to. I was reading an article in TIME magazine that actually had me thinking about this subject. The article raised my eyebrows at points. It said that women to men ratio in the workplace is going to be even within a few years. It also had shown how children and men are affected by this, such as there are more "stay at home dads", and moms are "bringing home the beacon".
So when i stopped to think about it i was left confused. On one hand i feel like women have every right to do, and be, anything they want. It's the woman's right. But on the other hand if the father and the mother are both working, what about the children. I feel like people try to blame things such as tv and video games as the reason there's a disconnect with even our own children, but we don't stop to think that it could possibly be the fact that hard working families (one with both parents working full time jobs) might never see their parents.
My personal experience with this is with my mother going to college because she decided she wanted to do something with her life, which i respect her tremendously for. However, since she graduated and got her job, she hasn't really been in the picture. There has definitely been a falling out.
So this just leaves me wondering how their could be tight knit family without there being at least a single parent watching over the children?
Carley Tortoriello "9/11 Suspects to be Tried in New York
On November 13 2009, the Obama Administration announced to the public that they would be removing the remaining prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and allowing they to be tried in New York City. This issue can be looked at in more ways than one, the first being a threat to one of the most populated cities in the country. But it also can be looked at as progress towards gradually releasing/trying the prisoners along with the speedy closure of Guantanamo, if all goes as planned. Obama believes that the outcomes of these trials will be that of success.
As i sat at my kitchen counter and read what was going on with these prisoners, I found it hard to decide whether or not this idea seemed smart. Although I support and agree with many of the decisions and plans that Obama has made or will make, this was one issue I was weary about. The first thing that came to my mind was my close friends and family who live in the city. I tried to put myself in their position, knowing that soon there will be terrorist being tried not only in the city they live in, but right down the street for some of them. These same people that will be within the same perimeters as the people I love, are the same people who brought our country to a screeching halt eight years ago. These same prisoners are being given the same rights as any other Americans, the privilege to a fair trial.
A decision like that will bring much attention to the city of New York and will even put it at high risk of another terrorist attack. The fact that the prosecutors are being authorized to seek the death penalty on all five 9/11 conspirators may bring ease to some who voiced their negative opinions about the issue. Although the Obama Administration is just trying to seek justice in the most appropriate way, like our countries been doing for over 200 years, they walk a fine line between fairness and possible endangerment.
As i sat at my kitchen counter and read what was going on with these prisoners, I found it hard to decide whether or not this idea seemed smart. Although I support and agree with many of the decisions and plans that Obama has made or will make, this was one issue I was weary about. The first thing that came to my mind was my close friends and family who live in the city. I tried to put myself in their position, knowing that soon there will be terrorist being tried not only in the city they live in, but right down the street for some of them. These same people that will be within the same perimeters as the people I love, are the same people who brought our country to a screeching halt eight years ago. These same prisoners are being given the same rights as any other Americans, the privilege to a fair trial.
A decision like that will bring much attention to the city of New York and will even put it at high risk of another terrorist attack. The fact that the prosecutors are being authorized to seek the death penalty on all five 9/11 conspirators may bring ease to some who voiced their negative opinions about the issue. Although the Obama Administration is just trying to seek justice in the most appropriate way, like our countries been doing for over 200 years, they walk a fine line between fairness and possible endangerment.
Dave Morris- "No Hats in School?"
While I was home over Thanksgiving Break, I got the opportunity to return to my former High School for Powder Puff and Thanksgiving game activities. With a couple of friends who had graduated with me by my side, we once again walked the halls that at one point in time entombed us in a brick and stone fortress; we saw underclassman friends whom we had left behind after graduating. Besides the normal rules and regulations being enforced we noticed something else, not one person was wearing a hat; no baseball hats, beanies, snow hats, nothing. This made no sense to us due in part that we were allowed to wear hats whenever we wanted to unless: a) the pledge of allegiance was being said or b) a teacher asked that all hats be taken off in a class of theirs. In my opinion, restricting the wearing of hats is a serious case of a power trip on the part of the school administration.
Wearing a hat is a voluntary choice on the part of the wearer. As long as its not done is a disrespectful or distasteful way, I don't see any problem with wearing a hat in school. When I was at the school, I knew the teachers who had issues with it, and there weren't many. For such a drastic rule to be passed without a large number off faculty advocating it meant only one thing; the school board got involved and decided to blow things out of proportion. I went home after the rally still confused. After reading the town newspaper it turns out that one of the school committee members caught wind of students failing to remove their hats during the pledge. Granted that is disrespectful, but why punish the whole population for something a couple of morons did? It's not like the group of students who failed to remove their hats represent the rest of them. This overreaction came as no surprise to me. The year before my senior class lost our senior privileges because some stupid freshman decided to flip off a basketball player from Franklin at a game. The little ass decided to blame the senior class, so we lose our privileges as a result; no investigation, no questions asked. In recent years my school's administration has had a knack for overreacting. This new rule concerning hats is a clear case and point illustrating it. It's PUBLIC school for Christ sake. There are private schools for a reason. Administrators need to wake up and smell the bulls*** already. Yes the administration is inclined to make sure order is kept in the school but restricting a simple thing like hats is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with maintaining the school's good image or protecting students from any kind of harm. As far as the respect factor goes, I do not believe a hat in the classroom is a sign of disrespect. If a teacher feels the need to ask students to take them off that's fine, but forcing them to refrain from wearing them anywhere in the building is completely asinine. Are school administrators using their power just a little too much? This former student has seen more than enough.
Wearing a hat is a voluntary choice on the part of the wearer. As long as its not done is a disrespectful or distasteful way, I don't see any problem with wearing a hat in school. When I was at the school, I knew the teachers who had issues with it, and there weren't many. For such a drastic rule to be passed without a large number off faculty advocating it meant only one thing; the school board got involved and decided to blow things out of proportion. I went home after the rally still confused. After reading the town newspaper it turns out that one of the school committee members caught wind of students failing to remove their hats during the pledge. Granted that is disrespectful, but why punish the whole population for something a couple of morons did? It's not like the group of students who failed to remove their hats represent the rest of them. This overreaction came as no surprise to me. The year before my senior class lost our senior privileges because some stupid freshman decided to flip off a basketball player from Franklin at a game. The little ass decided to blame the senior class, so we lose our privileges as a result; no investigation, no questions asked. In recent years my school's administration has had a knack for overreacting. This new rule concerning hats is a clear case and point illustrating it. It's PUBLIC school for Christ sake. There are private schools for a reason. Administrators need to wake up and smell the bulls*** already. Yes the administration is inclined to make sure order is kept in the school but restricting a simple thing like hats is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with maintaining the school's good image or protecting students from any kind of harm. As far as the respect factor goes, I do not believe a hat in the classroom is a sign of disrespect. If a teacher feels the need to ask students to take them off that's fine, but forcing them to refrain from wearing them anywhere in the building is completely asinine. Are school administrators using their power just a little too much? This former student has seen more than enough.
Julia Spehlmann
The recent drama in my hometown of North Reading regards a fake facebook made by police officers in order to view the students of North Reading High’s profiles. The facebook carried the name James Stinson and he claimed to be a student at NRHS. He “added” all the students from North Reading High, but when James never showed up at the school, students became suspicious. It turns out, the police reported over 100 students that had been underage drinking in facebook pictures to the principle. They also reported a parent in one of the pictures taking part in the drinking. This parent will now be going to court and will most likely face chargers. As for the students in these pictures, the consequences have not yet been determined. However, it is rumored that they will be suspended, kicked off sports teams, and clubs like National Honors Society. Keep in mind, 75% of the student drinking in the pictures were seniors and applying to college. A punishment like getting kicked off of National Honors Society could affect their college acceptance. So my question is, is it okay for police to use social networking sites for information?
Now, I do not believe that what the police did to look at the facebooks of NRHS students was okay, mostly because I think that drinking even in High School, especially in seniors is very common. I think that in this case, police and the school’s staff were just looking for something to get their students into trouble. Without the creation of James Stinson, everything would have gone along as it normally would. Finding these facebook pictures is not going to help in anyway. Students might be more careful about the pictures they post online, but the drinking problem is not going to end.
However, I do believe that using social networks for police work is okay more serious cases. For example, if terrorism is suspected, then I think that police should be able to take initiative and force facebook to let them view a particular profile. There have also been findings of drug deals on facebook. I think that it would be okay for police to use the information on facebook to help them in their investigations. Last year, a man overdosed on heroine and police used his facebook to find the source of the drugs. Also, a woman was sexually assaulted and beaten by three men she met on facebook and myspace. Investigators used the social networks to track down the men.
I definitely think that facebook should set aside privacy matters when it comes to such serious suspicions as these and let police investigate. I think it can be useful to identify suspects and find evidence or clues on certain matters. However, I don’t think that facebook should be used to regulate problems such as underage drinking because it is not going to stop the problem, it might just hide it even more. I think that instead of looking to get people in trouble, police should only use facebook when they have any suspicion of serious subjects or need to find clues and information.
Now, I do not believe that what the police did to look at the facebooks of NRHS students was okay, mostly because I think that drinking even in High School, especially in seniors is very common. I think that in this case, police and the school’s staff were just looking for something to get their students into trouble. Without the creation of James Stinson, everything would have gone along as it normally would. Finding these facebook pictures is not going to help in anyway. Students might be more careful about the pictures they post online, but the drinking problem is not going to end.
However, I do believe that using social networks for police work is okay more serious cases. For example, if terrorism is suspected, then I think that police should be able to take initiative and force facebook to let them view a particular profile. There have also been findings of drug deals on facebook. I think that it would be okay for police to use the information on facebook to help them in their investigations. Last year, a man overdosed on heroine and police used his facebook to find the source of the drugs. Also, a woman was sexually assaulted and beaten by three men she met on facebook and myspace. Investigators used the social networks to track down the men.
I definitely think that facebook should set aside privacy matters when it comes to such serious suspicions as these and let police investigate. I think it can be useful to identify suspects and find evidence or clues on certain matters. However, I don’t think that facebook should be used to regulate problems such as underage drinking because it is not going to stop the problem, it might just hide it even more. I think that instead of looking to get people in trouble, police should only use facebook when they have any suspicion of serious subjects or need to find clues and information.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
By Carina Melanson "Sexual Education"
I think that sexual education has failed to inform students about the reality of sexuality and should be changed in the school systems. It is a very important issue because children at a young age are being influenced by the media. Most of the television shows, magazines, and music videos are filled with representations of physical attractions. Children’s development seems to need a good understanding of the righteous ways for a male and female to act. Most sexual educations are like two hour lectures or ensembles that pass out condoms and list all the STDs. They show all the negative consequences of unprotected sex but never reach the topic of when to have sex, why it may benefit someone spiritually, or the psychological affects that becoming sexually active at a young age can have. All the times I experiences sexual education it was always a repetition of information that did not inform me of the positive outcomes of waiting to be sexually active with a partner that you love. I think sexual education should start spreading awareness of how important it is that people be selective with who they have sexual intercourse with because ultimately it is saying you would have that person’s babies. The meaning of sex and why it is a major aspect of life should be discussed. The way condoms are passed out just perpetuate the cycle of belief that having sex as many times as you want with whoever is accepted as long as you wear a condom. Sexual education needs an upgrade so that it makes children feel how powerful and life changing sexual intercourse is. All the contraceptives that are introduced just contradict the intention of teaching children about sex. After most of the ensembles kids would just walk away laughing or making jokes about how many condoms they have. I feel like sexual education is not as helpful because kids are starting to have sex at extremely young ages. The false motives to have sex and how it can become an addiction just like food, drugs, and alcohol. An interesting fact is that 19 percent puff people said that schools should not teach about oral sex. I also agree with this because it is introducing the ideas of other ways to receive pleasure without actually having the real thing. Abstinence- only education is another big issue. Should the curriculum be limited to teaching students to wait or should they also be taught how to make smart decisions when having sex like using protection. The whole idea of bombarding kid’s minds with all the different kinds of contraceptives is bizarre because contraceptives contradict the purpose of sex and make children think they can have their cake and eat it too. They walk away thinking “wow now I can still have sex if I use a condom, birth control pills, or dental dam and I won’t get an STD or make children.” I do think that safe sex is needed but it seems to be the biggest part of sexual education. The importance of the value of sex needs to be combined into the curriculum. Ultimately think the sex ed programs have failed and changes should be made.
Timmy Clark
In the college admission process, there are many factors that play into a student's decision of where to attend and many factors that play into the the college's decisions of who to admit. The SAT and ACT are the main focus on many college campuses. But, these standardized tests do not prove who the real person truly is or what he can accomplish. However, if your scores don't meet the minimum standard the school requires, the school may not even be willing to look at the other factors they say are part of the decisions. High school students stress way too much over these tests and the colleges put a lot of pressure on them to achieve success not only in the classroom, socially, and athletically, but also on the standarized tests.
To a certain extent, these test measure how good people are at taking a test. In fact you can take a prep course to learn how to do well on the test. In these prep courses, you aren't gaining any important knowledge, you are just learning how to beat the system. There are many students who work hard at school to get DECENT grades and then bomb these standarized tests. This kills them in the end. Many students put so much pressure on themselves to do well on a test that will not help them in any way in the future. The skills that these tests measure are only based on a certain amount of knowledge and kids with learning disabilities and other kinds of knowledge don't have a chance.
All and all these test are a waste of time. You can't measure a true value of a person using an SAT or ACT. A very smart kid who was lazy in high school and didn't put a lot of effort out there has a huge advantage going into these tests. Colleges should look at the whole person. I know some big colleges like UMass find it hard to look at every person in detail, but there are many things you can review other than test scores to prove that a student is worthy to be accepted into the institution.
To a certain extent, these test measure how good people are at taking a test. In fact you can take a prep course to learn how to do well on the test. In these prep courses, you aren't gaining any important knowledge, you are just learning how to beat the system. There are many students who work hard at school to get DECENT grades and then bomb these standarized tests. This kills them in the end. Many students put so much pressure on themselves to do well on a test that will not help them in any way in the future. The skills that these tests measure are only based on a certain amount of knowledge and kids with learning disabilities and other kinds of knowledge don't have a chance.
All and all these test are a waste of time. You can't measure a true value of a person using an SAT or ACT. A very smart kid who was lazy in high school and didn't put a lot of effort out there has a huge advantage going into these tests. Colleges should look at the whole person. I know some big colleges like UMass find it hard to look at every person in detail, but there are many things you can review other than test scores to prove that a student is worthy to be accepted into the institution.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Kate Loughlin
I believe the viewing of pornography should be cut down. Not as a religious or moral issue of right and wrong, but because of the effects it can have. With the internet, pornography is readily accessible, anonymously and for free. For our age group (especially for males) spending hours every week viewing porn is common. Watching pornography can change male-female relationships and sexual interactions and this is especially harmful for those just beginning to fully discover their sexual potential. Seeing nudity and sexual acts too frequently causes tolerance to be built up and more and more stimulation is needed in order to be turned on. Images and scenes that used to be exhilarating lose their excitement over time and higher levels of intensity are required. This causes people not only to seek out more and more intense pornography but also to be bored with sex with their partner.
Frequently masturbating to pornography can cause viewers to stop associating an orgasm with their partner (and their partners kiss, smell, or body) and begin to associate it with the images they are seeing on the screen. Many people start visualizing images from porn during actual sexual intercourse with their partner to increase their sexual excitement. But this causes the person not to be in the moment and destroys the connection between two people. For some men, it can actually become very difficult to achieve and maintain an erection or have an orgasm without visualizing porn. Porn also hurts relationships as it destroys trust because people try to hide their porn watching from their partner. Most people only have a certain amount of sexual desire and energy and rather than porn adding to the desire, it actually uses it up. People who do find out about the porn watching (and especially those who actually choose porn over sex) often feel betrayed as if the person was cheating on them. Porn watching can even develop into a full-blown addiction for some people.
Internet pornography creates unrealistic expectations of sex for many young people. In one study participants who viewed lots of porn reported less satisfaction with their intimate partner’s affection, physical appearance, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance. People often internalize what they are seeing on the screen and believe that is what sex is really like. Young people are learning what sex is, how it looks, and how they should act during it from pornography. In porn, women are screaming ecstatically (even during anal penetration), want sex at all times, and want exactly what the man wants. People who watch lots of porn tend to not put effort into foreplay or pleasing the other person because of what they see in porn. Women in porn videos are often shown as submissive and man-centered and do not have thoughts and needs of their own, this also causes many viewers to see women increasingly as sex objects. Because of porn, more women feel they have to have anal sex or let a guy ejaculate on their face in order to measure up. Many females feel they cannot compare physically to porn stars with full makeup, perfect bodies, fake tans, fake breasts and no pubic hair. For many men, the expectations of what a woman should look like grows too high to be fulfilled by an actual woman. They are less and less satisfied by their options of real people to date.
Sadly, viewing sex on the internet makes it more difficult to interact with real people and causes decreased intimacy and increased loneliness. Sex in pornography does not show the buildup of getting to know someone, developing a connection, and at some point needing to be as close as physically possible. It is only the physical act of having sex. Pornography plays into sexual intercourse going from making love to fucking. I do not think it is possible or appropriate for all of what is on the internet to be censored. Instead, I think each person should make a personal choice to limit pornography consumption for themselves and their current or future partners.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Kate Rivard
Lower the Drinking Age to 18
When a child turns 18, this entails him or her to receive certain rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Eighteen year old "adults" can vote, get married, sign up for certain contracts, serve on juries, and die for their country, meaning they understand the concept of life and death. Adults from the age of eighteen should be able to make their own choice about alcohol consumption.
I believe lowering the drinking age will make alcohol less of a taboo. The thrill of breaking the law will be taken away from children. Adolescents need to learn how to drink in moderation, and because they do not have the opportunity to do this, these children end up binge drinking when they consume alcohol. I believe it is better to teach the youth how to drink responsibly.
Keeping the drinking laws at the age of 21 sends the wrong signal to younger people. It represents that alcohol consumption shows maturity, which leads teenagers wanting to drink, so they appear more sophisticated. I believe lowering the drinking age will dispel this misconception.
Our society prohibits people under the age of 21 from drinking in bars, restaurants, and various other public locations, which forces these "minors" to drink in unsupervised areas, which is often very unsafe. When teenagers get hurt from alcohol related injuries they are often afraid of seeking medical attention or telling their parents in fear of legal consequences or thoughts of disapproval. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in supervised environments, so nothing dire goes unnoticed.
In our world today there is a lot more important issues that need to be addressed, rather than focusing time and money on minor issues such as drinking ages. I believe if our government used the money wasted on enforcing the laws of "minor" drinking and spent it on education for the youth in all aspects of knowledge, including alcohol consumption it would be more beneficial.
I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old. After the first initial years of changing it, I believe America will change to be more like Europe in their laid back drinking habits. I believe everyone would benefit from this law change. At the age of 18, individuals are considered at the age of majority and qualify as adults in society. Men and women at the age of 18 are also able to die for their country. I believe if they have the right and privilege to enlist in the army, they should also have the right to enjoy a few drinks.
When a child turns 18, this entails him or her to receive certain rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Eighteen year old "adults" can vote, get married, sign up for certain contracts, serve on juries, and die for their country, meaning they understand the concept of life and death. Adults from the age of eighteen should be able to make their own choice about alcohol consumption.
I believe lowering the drinking age will make alcohol less of a taboo. The thrill of breaking the law will be taken away from children. Adolescents need to learn how to drink in moderation, and because they do not have the opportunity to do this, these children end up binge drinking when they consume alcohol. I believe it is better to teach the youth how to drink responsibly.
Keeping the drinking laws at the age of 21 sends the wrong signal to younger people. It represents that alcohol consumption shows maturity, which leads teenagers wanting to drink, so they appear more sophisticated. I believe lowering the drinking age will dispel this misconception.
Our society prohibits people under the age of 21 from drinking in bars, restaurants, and various other public locations, which forces these "minors" to drink in unsupervised areas, which is often very unsafe. When teenagers get hurt from alcohol related injuries they are often afraid of seeking medical attention or telling their parents in fear of legal consequences or thoughts of disapproval. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in supervised environments, so nothing dire goes unnoticed.
In our world today there is a lot more important issues that need to be addressed, rather than focusing time and money on minor issues such as drinking ages. I believe if our government used the money wasted on enforcing the laws of "minor" drinking and spent it on education for the youth in all aspects of knowledge, including alcohol consumption it would be more beneficial.
I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years old. After the first initial years of changing it, I believe America will change to be more like Europe in their laid back drinking habits. I believe everyone would benefit from this law change. At the age of 18, individuals are considered at the age of majority and qualify as adults in society. Men and women at the age of 18 are also able to die for their country. I believe if they have the right and privilege to enlist in the army, they should also have the right to enjoy a few drinks.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Heather
Playing ice hockey is something that I have been doing since I could walk. I even used to play with the boys because there was no girl program. Now as a nineteen-year-old girl, I am still passionate about playing ice hockey and continuing my career through college. The reason I am writing about women’s ice hockey is because a lot of people think it is a huge joke. They say that women’s ice hockey is “boring” or “a guy’s sport” and a lot of times it is even stereotyped as a “dyke sport”.
Women’s ice hockey is growing all around the world and is becoming extremely popular everywhere. It is a well-liked sport in the Olympics just like men’s hockey. It may not be as fast paced or rough (because we cannot check in women’s ice hockey) as men’s hockey, but it is definitely just as important.
What makes it such a man sport anyways? Is it because it makes people sweat and smell? Just because I play women’s ice hockey and it makes me stronger than some other girls does not mean that I am a dyke or manly. And just because it is slower paced because we may not be as strong and fast as the men’s does not make it more boring than men’s hockey.
At my games we always have an audience. People come to watch us play women’s ice hockey. My parents have always said that even though my games are a little slower than my brother’s, they are just as entertaining. They say that when the games are close it is just as exhilarating to watch as the boy’s games.
Playing ice hockey is something that is very important to me and has been in my life since I was a little girl. Women’s ice hockey is a legitimate sport and is just as fashionable and popular as men’s hockey. It is just as hard to play women’s ice hockey in college because just as many girl’s want to play as guy’s. Women’s ice hockey is growing all over the country and the world and will keep getting bigger.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)