Why ban books when you can set them on fire?

All across America parents are fighting local and even state legal cases about whether certain books should be banned from school or public libraries. These parents say that they are attempting to get these books banned because they contain foul language, suggestive themes, against religion, or whatever reason suits them for the time being. These parents will go to every expense to get these books removed from the shelves. Why? What is the big deal if their kid becomes a little educated to the real world? Hell, they do not even get to experience it until they get out of college. Do these parents plan to hold their kids hand until the day the these kids get their diplomas? How in the world are they going to survive the real world?

These parents claim to be sheltering their kids from the pains that run rampant through the world. In Georgia this week, for instance, a mother from Atlanta is trying to get the Harry Potter series pulled from the shelves. Why? Because they are against God. This mother thinks that she is protecting her children from Atheism. But from a different perspective, maybe these parents are just trying to control their kids and run their lives. How are these people any better than dictators across history? Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein all removed books that did not agree with their agendas and/or doctrines. But at least they were smart about it: Why just pull the books off the shelves when you can BURN THEM?! In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, life without books really was not to bad, was it? Other than the fact that everyone's life was controlled by the sole sources of information.

My thoughts to kids: Read Everything! There is no limit to the knowledge that you can gain from reading.

My thoughts to parents: No one is making your kid read these books. Your children need to learn on their own what the real world is like. Choose your battles, let the kids have their books, but you can still go battle what kind of music is available or what video games they can play.

For the most part...Tipping is needed.

The very first job that I got in high school was one where all I worked for was tips. I was considered a "volunteer" and I did not have to pay any type of taxes. Today in many jobs it seems mandatory that a customer tip the employee, even though it is not. Some of these jobs include waiting tables, being a pizza delivery person, or working at a casino or hotel.

According to Business Today, tips should only be rewarded for good or superb service a customer receives. According to the American Society of Travel Agents in a Business Today article, 15 to 20 percent gratuity from the bill price is normal for restaurants. In big parties, 15 percent gratuity is already added for you. According to the same article, most waitresses think that 15 percent is a decent amount for waiting a table. According to Restaurant Gage.com, tips are the main income of the waiter or waitress. For some restaurant waiters and waitresses, the hourly wage is somewhere between $2-4. For anyone this is not enough, which is why tipping is such an important part of the job. Without tips, people probably would not have enough to pay for anything.

On the Pizza Driver Homepage, it states that the minimum tip for a pizza delivery driver is $2. Although the common gratuity is 15%, if it is less than $2 than the minimum should be $2. It also states that a great service person should receive 20% while a poor service person should receive only 10%.

From personal experience, many things determine the amount of gratuity a person is going to receive. The friendliness of the person, the amount of time the person takes to do the service asked, the amount of the bill itself, and the sometimes the quality of the food or items bought. Yes, I always try to pay 15%, but sometimes people do not deserve it. Because I know how it feels to do someone a service and receive a quarter, I know how a person should act to receive a good tip. From personal experience, some of the servers I have had do not deserve the 15% gratuity they want. But on the other hand, I understand that most people who get tipped don't make much money in the first place and need the tips. But I still believe that if they want more money, they need to do more work to get it.

what does not matter for you may matter for someone else

In most news media, they are supposed to call people by what they want to be called. In some cases that is easily defined, but for some individuals this is not so easy. Transvestites, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians may have a different name for themselves than that of which they are. To find out what the person wants to be called, the reporter needs to ask. If a person is called something they do not want to be called, it could cause problems for the person but also for the news organization. Most news media uses this same policy. The ethics behind this policy is that if the reporter does not ask and puts what they want in the story, they are discriminating toward that person. That particular person may not be what the reporter says and it could very much ruin their reputation. I am not sure, but I think libel can come in to play here.

In my opinion it does not really matter. If a person wants to be called something other than what they really are, I think they should be called that. To make my opinion about this issue, I had to kind of look in their perspective. They know they are not the same as everyone else, and they don't want to be called the same thing. If I were a lesbian, which I am not, I would want to be called a lesbian because that is what I would be. But others, like transvestites, may want to choose the gender he or she would like to be known as. For people of different gender than what they are makes it really hard on news media. If the person does not tell the reporter what they want to be called, it can cause issues. First of all most people don't want to ask. It may seem rude or impolite. I think if a person has a questionable gender and is going to talk to the media, they need to tell them what they want to be called.

Spying on Terrorists is always a good thing

The Domestic Monitoring Program that President Bush put into place is a program that lets the National Security Agency put suspected terrorists under watch. Under this program, the NSA is authorized to eavesdrop on conversations that are leaving and entering the US. This program was designed after 9/11 to stop terrorists from attacking again. The controversy in this program is that most people think that a court approval is needed.

A lot of people that do not think the idea is a good idea is because they consider this to be spying on people. They are saying that they do not want to know when people are plotting against the United States. They want to wait and have another 9/11 happen. People who do not agree with the program also want a court approval before the monitoring takes place. I can already find a problem with that. So the people that want to wait for court approval want to wait for the court date. The court date can take place at any time and it can also take place a long time away. So while we are waiting on this court date to happen, people can be plotting and acting against the United States. I guess they just don't want people in America to be safe.

I think the monitoring program is a great idea. If people didn't have anything to hide, they would not mind having their phone taps. I think that people do not want this to happen because they have something to hide. If people are doing bad things in our country than they should be caught and stopped before another terrorist attack happens. If the NSA can catch terrorist before they attack, than terrorism will eventually become a lesser threat. Yes, it will take a while but I think it is worth the safety of our country. One reason why people should be happy because this is taking care of some of the danger in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are catching the terrorists, this could later call for fewer troops. Well people complain about how there are too many troops over there, so this could bring down the amounts of troops there and eventually allow for all of them to come home.

In my History class, we learned about our natural rights, Life, Liberty, and they pursuit of happiness. I do not think this program is breaking any of these rights. If this monitoring program does not take place, then I think we are going to loose these rights. More people will die and grief will be a part of the lives of more people in the US. This program is there to keep everyone safe and to seek out the people who try to bring us harm. They are definitely not trying to spy on us.

Unborn children should not be aborted

For the most part, I agree with the bill from 2006 completely. I have found out that in most cases, most women who get abortions did not even want to get pregnant. In the United States, 49% of the pregnancies in America are unintended and they are aborted. Out of all the women that obtain abortions, 52% of them are 25 or younger, 33% are 20-24 and 19% are teens. Here’s an example of how many abortions actually occur. In 1996 there were 1,221,585 abortions in the United States alone, so using the percentages above 232,101 were teens and 403,124 were between 20 and 24 years of age. Although these numbers have been going down slowly, this new act can help with the decrease of abortion drastically. So in other words, I think that the new abortion act is fine in most cases. If the women decide to have an abortion, seeing an ultrasound will let them have a change of heart. Ok...so it will cause guilt trips for women, but it is a guilt trip that will save another human beings life.

Although it will not get rid of abortion 100%, it will help in the decrease. If teens and adults decide to have unprotected sex I think that they should take responsibility for their actions. If the did not want to get pregnant, they should have been more careful and not had sex off the seat of their pants. If you are not ready to have kids, I think people should consider having safer sex. I think this should also go for married couples. If they decide to have unprotected sex and have an unintended pregnancy, they should also have the baby. If they couple thinks they are too old to have kids, maybe they should have thought of that before hand. If they to the actions to get pregnant, they should not take a life for the mistake that they made.

But on the other hand, I also think that some cases should be considered. Rape is an issue that stands in some abortions. When women are raped and get pregnant, I fully agree with having the baby aborted. Being raped is one the worst things that can happen to a girl or a woman and she should not have to be reminded of that every time they look at the child that they had been raped. In these cases, I think there should be an exception. Anyone who has gone through rape should not be forced to have his or her rape baby. Another exception to this rule should be women who are at risk for their lives. Usually when women give birth and their lives are at risk, the woman dies and so does the child. I think it is better to loose one life over two, especially when one life can be saved. These are the only exceptions that I think are important and should be taken into consideration.

Only 35 MPG?!

The United States Government just passed a bill into law that states that all new motor vehicles produced after 2019 are required to have at least a 35 mile-per-gallon fuel consumption. While this law is good, in that car manufacturers will be required to make slightly more fuel efficient vehicles, it is horrible that it is only 35MPG. With China and Japan producing 100MPG cars now, and requiring vehicles be at least in the 70s, American car companies cannot even sell most of their cars over seas. Europe is the not as high as Asia, but most of their vehicles are at least in the 50 to 60 MPG range. While the bill was supported by many "tree-huggers" it is said to be the only compromise between the legislators and the car companies. COMPROMISE?! Why is our government compromising with businesses?! Our government should be looking out for the people, not the companies.

Mass Advertising or Mass Execution

Have you ever noticed the billboards that line the highways? Sure you have; everyone has. They're annoying, boring, and worst of all, they are DISTRACTING! Sure, some of them are interesting, for instance the Chic-fil-a billboards with the three-dimensional cow statues never cease to amaze me. BUT, these billboards, especially the few interesting ones, are extremely distracting. What's the big deal? Aren't advertisements supposed to catch your attention? Yes, but my question is: ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KILL YOU?

Over 40,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2005 alone, thats about one death in every 13 minutes. According to the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), nearly 25% of these deaths are attributed to drivers being distracted. That's over 10,000 people each year! The NHTSA released a statement that 30% of distracted drivers are distracted by cell phones. That still leaves 7,000 people who die each year from distractions. Now I'm not saying that all 7,000 deaths are because of billboards, and there are no statistics to prove either way, but just think about how many possible deaths each year could be caused from this accepted form of mass advertising. And billboards are only one form of advertising.

What about television? You can turn on the television and watch depressing news about murders, wars, rapists on the loose, and anything else that you may find depressing. You switch to other channels where you can watch reality television shows that showcase people doing extreme stunts where there is a rather high chance of death. With television being so depressing these days, it is no wonder that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) says that out of the 30,000 suicides each year nearly 29,000 are of people who are suffering of depression. Having not even touched on television advertisements, one can almost see how television might actually have helped caused some of this depression. Everyday teenage girls across the world watch television commercials that tell them how imperfect they are. These commercials tell them that they aren't pretty, that they are overweight, that they aren't smart, or that they will never succeed in life because they aren't perfect like these television models. What does this do for the self-esteem of these teenage girls? It drops it dramatically, and low self-esteem is a major cause of depression. And depression is a major cause of suicide. Teenage boys are watching shows like Jackass where stupid people do stupid potentially fatal, or at least painful stunts. These boys who are watching these shows go out and attempt these stunts that often end up having fatal results. Although these shows do not air until later in the evening, the commercials for these shows do not even include the "Do not try this at home!" small print. Also the commercials for every cartoon seem to be exploding with violence. What does this say about violence and death to these boys?

The internet is another place to get bad advertising. With over a billion people online across the world, the internet is a great place for advertisers. But does anyone ever questions these annoying advertisements? No. Kids go online every day to sites all over the internet that include advertisements of people doing stupid stunts, or more advertisements telling people how imperfect that they are. Aside from that, what about all of the advertisements for all of the violent games that appear on the internet? What about the pop-up advertisements for the videos of people doing stupid things?

How many deaths can we attribute for the psychological effects of advertising? How many deaths can we attribute to the distractions from the reality? What is the media, with all of its power trying to accomplish? Is it mass advertising or mass execution?

UPDATE: Maybe I'm not crazy after all. And oddly enough, it seems like other people agree: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1271015,00.html?f=rss

Price Gouging?!

With gas prices rising like the temperature, there is all of this talk about gas stations price gouging again. When there was a shortage here in Georgia, because of the hurricanes and the current war, we saw prices rise above three dollars and sit there. At one point, right after a major hurricane, prices went even higher and then we saw businesses began to price gouge. Some gas stations had gas being sold for over nine dollars per gallon. Everyone was freaking out because of the shortage, and people were paying this much.
Because of this extreme gouging, the governor set a price that the gas stations could not go above, and placed an 10,000 fee for price gouging. My question is, what gives the governor the right to do this? Why does he get to make a decision to to deter the basic fundamentals of capitalist business in this country?
Price gouging should be allowed. Gas stations should be able to rise prices as high as they want and make money off of the people who are too stupid to wait to buy gas. Florists should be able to charge a hundred dollars for a simple dozen roses on valentines day or mothers day for the guys who wait until the absolute last second to buy them. American business is the backbone of the American economy. Let business do what it wants. We are a capitalist nation, and therefore we should not let the government control business. Let the people. If a gas station wants to charge ten bucks a gallon for gas, well then no one wants to shop there and the station will either drop their price or go out of business. If a business can make some money off of other ignorant Americans, let them.

It's My Money, Spend it on Me!

In America, over a million people die every year from starvation and homelessness. Every year America spends billions of dollars on foreign aide. Why is America spending so much money on other countries when our own country already has its own problems to deal with. America spends all of this money on its invested capitalist interests.
The wars in the Middle East for instance, were started to maintain our positive relations and support with the many nations. America wants to keep this relationship to keep the same relationship with the oil companies in the area.
President Bush has talked many times about freeing the nations of their oppressions and promoting democracy. This is absurd. If America wanted to stop oppressions, why are we not spending as much on countries that are worse off like Darfur and Uganda?
It would not be right to just take all of the funding away from those countries that America is currently providing “aid” to. Instead the funding should be slowly cut so the countries can learn to be independent of America. Once funding is cut, the money should go toward fixing the problems here in America. Keep the money where it belongs. We do not have to go as far as socializing medicine or establishing a communist workforce, but something needs to be done.
Just think, a few billion dollars to be spent to help the million starving Americans equals a few hundred dollars per person. That money could mean life or death for those people.

I'm Free!

Another step toward complete freedom is possible depending on the rule of a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is deciding on whether police officers can be held liable for injuries or fatalities caused from high-speed chases. This sounds like a bad idea: are the police not helping by chasing after these criminals? If they are working toward deterring crime, then why should we penalize them for accidents? With just over 350 people killed a year, it should be obvious that something needs to be done about the situation.
If the Supreme Court rules that police are liable for these deaths and injuries, police will be less likely to participate in high-speed chases as to avoid the risk of being held responsible. This would give Americans a new freedom: the freedom to not be chased by the cops. This decision would be the first time the Supreme Court has ever given us freedom, rather than take it away.
I think that I would rather enjoy this new freedom. I would be able to go rob a bank, say Community Bank and Trust, then as long as I drive badly and unsafely, which I do anyways, and the police will not chase me. This would help me when I return next semester to help to pay the 10% increase in tuition. I definitely think that the Supreme Court should pass this law.

Freedom of Political Discussion

In America there is a first amendment that allows each citizen the freedom of speech. There is no law requiring that said citizens must listen to certain people. Professors at any college should be allowed to talk about politics in the class. In fact, professors should be able to speak about their personal political beliefs. Maybe I am biased, since generally in my experience, my views are similar to those of my professors. I am positive that I do not let this bias get to me in my decision.
If a professor feels inclined to speak about their personal political views, more power to them. As long as these professors stay professional about it, and not bias grading or evaluation based on their views. Professors should not attempt to force their students to give their opinions, unless they want to. Professors should also not make students feel uncomfortable when stating their opinions.
As long as the professor stays professional, there is no problem with them talking about their political views. In my opinion, students should feel good since the professor feels that they can open up to them. Professors should feel like they are able to have open political discussions in class. College is the last step before the real world, and in the real world, no one hesitates to get atop their soap box.

Let Everyone Light Up!

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death according to the US Surgeon General. Why then, are cigarettes legal, and marijuana not? There are no proven deaths that are linked solely to marijuana use. In other parts of the world, like Europe, marijuana is used frequently as a pain killing remedy.
The only downside is that every once in a while a young kid is introduced to pot and then later that day is introduced to other, more harmful drugs. The number of times that this happens would drastically decrease if marijuana was made legal. If it were legal, kids and people of all ages would not have to go to bad areas that house loads of harmful drugs. Instead these so-called "pot-heads" could just light up on the corner, just like a tobacco user could.
Marijuana use should be a choice. If the government wants to limit this choice, let them limit their limitations to those that apply to tobacco. April 20th is coming up. 4-20 is the Unofficial National "Get High" Day. Why can we not just bring the world together and have a jolly ole time.

Georgia Alcohol Ban

In the past, the federal government has not done too well with attempting to control alcohol, so what makes the state of Georgia think they can do a better job? The question is not about whether the state should ban alcohol on a religious day, but is instead why should the state have control? These questions bring about a need for change: the General Assembly should lift the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday.
The foremost reason to lift the ban is because there is no good reason to have it in the first place. The ban originated in the 1800s when many states were restricting what their citizens could do on Sundays. The reasoning was that Sunday is reserved to be the day of God. According to the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause of the First Amendment states that no federal or state government can “influence him [a person] to profess a belief in any religion.” While the ban is not a direct denial of the rights of the first amendment, it surely influences the practice of Sunday being the day of God.
Another reason to lift the ban is that since we can already purchase drinks of wine or beer at restaurants why are we not allowed to buy a bottle and drink it in the comforts of our own home.
Some people have proposed solutions of allowing the decision to be made by county or local governments. The entire problem could be solved simply by lifting the ban on purchasing alcohol on Sundays. Lift that ban!

No habla Inglés.

No habla Inglés.

In many parts of the United States, one might hear this phrase in schools, restaurants, and other locations. Many people, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, see this as anti-American. On the other hand are those of us who feel that the United States should not be dominated by one style of thinking, and therefore one style of communicating.

Many advocates including U.S. English, an advocate group for “Official English,” support the English-Only movement to make English the official language of the United States. Legally, America has no official language, English is only official de facto, in other words all government business is conducted in English.

America is mostly made up of immigrants, or descendents or immigrants. Why should the American government decide which immigrated language should be the one spoken in America? From my own visits out of the country, I realized how lucky I was to speak a language that is fairly well known.

People in America, especially citizens should be given the respect of that feeling of security. American should be allowed to speak any language they choose, even at government institutions. Also, if all languages were allowed, Americans could become fluent in multiple languages and therefore be more educated and could communicate with many people.

If the government limits what languages we can speak, how can one not expect the same government not to limit the ways that we think? The government grants us the freedom of speech, why can it not be in the language of our own choice.

Racist Religions

Webster’s dictionary defines a racist as someone who believes that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Webster defines a sexist as someone who discriminates based on gender. With these being true, why do so many people believe that many religious people are not discriminatory?
So many people are hassled on a daily basis about being racist and about making racist comments. People like radio host Don Imus are called out about making off-hand remarks. Believe it or not, not many people actually knew who Mr. Imus was until the media got a hold of the story. Why then does the general population of America not call out on people like Rev. Al Sharpton who are discriminatory in their religion?
All across the world, religious people are biasing judgment based on religious beliefs. Many people who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic often are not open to the opinions of people of other religious affiliations. The Crusades is a war that started over a difference in religious views. With no end in sight the Crusades are still fought even today.
Rev. Al Sharpton is constantly pointing his finger and people who are discriminatory. Maybe the finger should be pointed at him for his own discrimination of those who are not Christian. Part of being a good Christian is accepting who people are different than you are.
I firmly believe that religious people need to step up to the plate and face facts. If you are one of the billions of religious people, there is a very good chance that you, in fact, discriminate against other people just because they do not think and believe like you do. You can be a better person by accepting that people are different in not only skin color and gender, but also in beliefs. It is okay that you have different opinions, just do not bias or judge based on the differences.