Doing Charity... for money?

Most of us are familiar with the Salvation Army bell ringers who stand outside in the freezing cold collecting money for charity. I know that I always appreciate the fact that these people are giving their time and braving the cold to help others.

However, what I didn't realize, was that this was a paid position, not a volunteer based community service. I read an article which talked about the current state of the economy's effect on the Salvation Army. The positions of a bell ringer (which requires an application and then pays about minimal wage - $7.25 an hour) are extremely sought-after. According to the article, more and more people are applying for this job because of the economic downturn.

At first, I was a little bit outraged - getting paid to do charity?!

But then my friend Sophie brought up a good point: The Salvation army's mission is to help others, especially during the holiday season. By giving jobs to these people who otherwise wouldn't have work, they are helping those people who are in turn helping a huge number of people. When I look at it that way, I can see the good in the situation. However, this also means that everytime you drop some spare change into the collection jars, the money may be going to someone's paycheck, as opposed to 100% going to charity.

What do you think about this situation? Is it wrong to be paid for volunteer work in your opinion?

New Method for Executions

A few months back, I blogged about the failed execution of Romell Broom, a man who was given the death penalty in Ohio for murdering and raping a 14 year old girl. In a recent article I read, the state of Ohio employed a new method for administrating the death penalty: a one-drug intravenous lethal injection. This new method is very much alike to that of putting an animal to sleep (euthanizing animals), as it involves a large dose of anesthetic. According to many experts, it is a painless procedure. Furthermore, most experts see it as an improvement to the widely used method of a three-drug cocktail, because this method requires "a short-acting barbiturate to render the inmate unconscious, followed by a paralytic and then chemical to stop the heart." A barbiturate is used as a sedative and acts as a depressant to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). According to Romell Broom's lawyer, Broom was wincing in pain during the administrators attempts to execute him with the three-drug cocktail.

Personally, I think that this new method sounds much more humane. I've known many people who have had to put pets to sleep, and I know that these animals do not suffer, but simply drift off to sleep before they are killed. Well, this then begs the question, does this man (Kenneth Biros), who sexually assaulted and then murdered and desembled a girl, deserve to be killed humanely? I think this is a very hard question to answer, and I'm not exactly sure where I fall on the issue. I guess I believe that he should be killed as humanely as possible, because he is still getting punished - his life is getting taken away.

Another interesting debate the article sparked up was that this was the first time that this euthanizing method had been used on humans, so it has been dubbed "human experimentation" by medical and legal experts. The phrase "human experimentation" has bad connotation to me, as it reminds me of horrendous procedures done on Holocaust victims by the Nazis during World War II. However, as the legal director of the Crimminal Justice Legal Foundation - Kent Scheiddegger - pointed out, “What kind of test do they [critics of human experimentation] expect?” he said. “A controlled study with volunteers? Not likely.”

What do you think? Is it ok in this situation to test out a new method on humans, or is it never just for human experimentation never occur?

Picture from: http://ucsbglobalvoices.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/death-penalty.jpg

Privacy and Youtube

This morning while eating breakfast, I was skimming the newspaper (Chicago Tribune) and saw an interesting Ask Amy Article: At a birthday party, a woman's ten year old son was filmed, and the video was posted on Youtube without the permission of parents of children at the party. The woman said that she called the family, expressing politely her unhappiness at the video, and then asked Amy whether or not she was mistaken in doing so.

Amy responded by saying that there is a difference between Youtube and National television, and that most likely, videos involving her son at a school concert or sporting event, or of him and his friends, would probably end up on Youtube someday too. And, she brought up a good point at the end, to, saying that the mom should take this opportunity to educate her son on the risks of sharing videos (privacy and safety issues).

This article made me think about the conversations regarding privacy we had in class. I'm split on this situation. On one hand, I think that it was not that big of a deal that a video from the birthday was posted on Youtube, such a huge site where the video was probably only posted so that others attending the party could see it. However, I can also see from a parents point of view and where the mom was coming from, in feeling like her and her son's privacy was invaded because they family did not ask permission. To be on the safe side, the family probably should have asked permission before posting. What do you think? Is it an invasion of privacy if a family posts a Youtube video of other kids without consulting the parents first?

picture from: http://www.dolphin.upenn.edu/pennband/img/youtube-logo.jpg

Name Defines Job Applicants

I read a very suprising statistic while reading an article, "In Job Hunt, College Degree Can't Close Racial Gap". The article described the inequalities in our society regarding companies hiring more whites over blacks, even when those who weren't white had prestigious educations and lots of work experience. However, the statistic that suprised me was from a study in The American Economic Review, called "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" The study showed that those applying for jobs with "black-sounding" names recieved 50% less callbacks for interviews than people with "white-sounding" names.

This infuriated me a bit, because your name should not be what defines who you are in regards to whether or not you will be a good employee. No one can control what they are named, however, they can control what type of education/experience they can bring to a position. A company should give each application a fair chance, focusing strictly on what is there, and give fair interviews to all applicants. According to the article, "Discrimination in many cases may not even be intentional, some job seekers pointed out, but simply a matter of people gravitating toward similar people, casting about for the right “cultural fit,” a buzzword often heard in corporate circles." In other words, some companies don't even know they are being discriminatory, but simply gravitate toward names that sound "white". Just because your name is not Emily or Greg, for example, doesn't mean that a person is any less adequate for a job. With college graduate black males having an unemployment rate of twice that of white males, and interviewers superficially judging people by their name, something people are not in control over, how can there be equal opportunities for all men in our country?

"Over Punishment in Schools"

According to www.dictionary.com, police are "an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws". In New York City, police are in charge of public school security, making schools there much safer. However, according to an editorial I read ("Over-Punishment in Schools"), there has been growing concern from juvenile justice advocates about the policies and circumstances in which children are being arrested. In some cases, they feel that the police are arresting and criminalizing children for behavior that was dealt with principals, parents, and guidance counselors, in the past. In many cities, school officials have identified the problem of "over policing". Juvenile justice advocates feel that "over policing" in schools has a negative affect on students because those who are arrested or singled out by the criminal justice system in school have a greater risk of dropping out of school or later on in life having issues with the law. Furthermore, the article says that most of these students are either Black or Hispanic, and many have emotional or learning disabilities.

The solution lawmakers are trying is the new Student Safety Act. The act is still a draft bill, but its main points would allow teachers, parents, and students to file complaints against security officers working at school, and "The draft bill would require police and education officials to file regular reports that would show how suspensions and other sanctions affect minority children, children with disabilities and other vulnerable groups".

As I thought about this article, I wondered whether or not it was right that the police were involved at school. Clearly, they provided safety for students which I think is extremely important, especially in neighborhoods where gangs are prevalent. However, I feel that the criminal justice system and the school disciplinary system should be separate. It isn't fair for a student if they could be in trouble with the police for walking without a hall pass or talking back to a teacher (examples given in the article). In those situations, it should be on the principal or dean to decided what the punishment should be. Perhaps a warning or detention.

What do you think? To what extent should police be involved in school discipline and security?

Picture from: http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/police-car.JPG

In the name of fame?

A few days ago, Sophie blogged about the couple (Michaele and Tareq Salahi) who broke into the White House to attend a fancy state dinner. They were able to get passed secret service and White House security, pretending that they were on the guest list. Today, I read a follow up article about the couple, "White House Intruders Want Money for Tale". Apparently, the want to become reality TV stars, and the break in was all a ploy for fame and money. According to the article, the couple "postponed plans for an interview Monday on CNN's 'Larry King Live' and were seeking top-dollar bids for their first television interview." The couple is waiting to see who bids the highest for an interview with them, part of their scheme to make big bucks off their White House escapade. Not only that, but this is not Michaele Salahi's first shot at fame: she also has a spot on "Real Housewives of D.C., the Bravo TV show".

After reading this article, I couldn't help thinking back to the Balloon Boy Hoax, and the parents who were so desperate for fame that they harmed their own son and lied to the public. There seems to be a trend of people lying in order to find fame. In my opinion, neither of these couples deserve fame, they haven't done anything worthy of appreciation from the public. Instead, they've just been embarrassments to our country. Why the sudden quest for fame? What makes reality TV show fame so appealing to people? Do you think this couple is worthy of our country's attention?

Picture from: http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IST/IST500/ICN1031.jpg

The Right...to hang laundry?

"U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry" ?? This article heading completely surprised me when I stumbled across it this morning on Yahoo. Perhaps because I never thought of hanging laundry as a right that could be taken away. But, in many towns in Pennsylvania and across the U.S., this right is being opposed. Carin Froehlich hangs her laundry every day on a clothesline between her trees in her backyard. She does this to save energy and save money. However, neighbors have sent her anonymous letters telling her that her yard looks like "trailer trash" and they don't want to see her "unmentionables", even though she hangs her underwear inside. According to the article, many towns have passed "No haning rules" because, "The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry." Also passing these rules are housing associations such as condominiums and townhouses that make up 20 percent of the population.

Personally, I think that this is an insignificant battle to be fighting. We live in an age where most people are very aware of the environment and there is immense pressure I think, on our generation, to help save our planet. Hanging laundry to dry reduces the greenhouse gases and energy consumption, so why ban this eco-friendly practice? Carin Froehlich brings up a good point: "'If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry,'" she says. Although I don't believe that people should have the right to possess arms, I firmly believe that this right should not be taken away from American citizens. I think that hanging clothes outside is a harmless act, especially if undergarments are kept inside, plus it has huge benefits. What does it say about our nation if we care more about what is in our neighbors backyards (appearances), than the health of our planet?

Picture from: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/STFPOD/859022.jpg

Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

In light of the civil liberties discussions we have been having in class, I read an interesting article, "Weighing Life in Prison For Youths Who Didn't Kill", that touches upon this subject. In Florida, 77 people are serving a life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of crimes they committed as juveniles, none of them murder. Two of these prisoners (one raped a woman and the other committed an armed burglary) are going to appeal in court on Monday, saying that they should not be sentenced to die in prison for a crime other than a homicide because the Eight Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Judges and state representatives are divided over the issue. Some see locking them up without hope for the future as barbaric, but others see teens as having the ability to determine basic right verse wrong, and in those cases, they should be punished and treated as adults. Many people also feel that because Florida is a tourist state and a sought out place for retirement, it needs to be safe and secure.

I think that punishing these people for life for crimes they committed as teens is not appropriate. As people who believe that juveniles should not be executed argue, "people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.". The key phrase I think here is "capable of change". I agree completely that teenagers whether 13 or 17 should know that it is wrong to rape someone, wrong to commit a robbery, and those people deserve to spend a long chunk of time in prison. But, I do believe that with therapy and help, these teens can change, their brains will develop more, and they should have another shot at life. It's unfair to punish them away for ever because of a mistake (in these cases huge mistakes), that they made. I think that regarding the 8th amendment, it is cruel to keep them in prison for life, without any hope for the future. Disregarding the death penalty, the Supreme court usually allows states to decided how to punish each crime. Yet I think that this situation is unconstitutional.

Do you think that this is a situation in which one's constitutional rights are not being regarded? Or is this punishment just and constitutional?

picture: http://afghanistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/07/prison.jpg

War as an Equalizer

I read an interesting article about women who fight in the military, particularly about a women named Vivienne Pacquette who has been employed in the army for more than 20 years and spent 2 of those years in Iraq. The main focus of the article was post-traumatic stress disorder, (click here for more information on p.t.s.d.) which results from the trauma that the soldiers deal with while employed. Post-traumatic stress disorder can distorts personalities, lead to trouble sleeping, paranoia, and isolation. The article says that never before has there been so many women "paralyzed by the psychological scars of combat", and this is due to a historic shift in that the military has allowed women to take part in ground combat, positions previously barred from women.

Experts who have been studying these women acknowledge that female soldiers have been dealing with the stresses that come from fighting in ground combat just as well as the males are, and that "Psychologically, it seems, they are emerging as equals." But, different circumstances upon returning home lead to differences in coping between males and females. Regardless, Vivienne Pacquette, along with many other women, believe that war has been an equalizer. Instead of women being seen as weak, they are now fighting side by side men in Iraq, facing road side bombs, mortar attacks, and shootings, together.

So does this mean that we need war in order to bring equality between males and females? I think that by allowing men and women to fight side by side together in a war, they are creating equality in the war zone, because neither gender has a direct advantage: both are facing the same dangers and being effected mentally almost the same. Without war, I think that many people would still see women as physically inferior to men. But I also think that many people in society will still view women as less than when they return home from war because of the stereotypical role they are cast into. Indeed, the article says, "after completing important jobs in the war, women...smack up against old-fashioned ignorance: male veterans and friends who do not recognize them as "real soldiers";... and a society that expects them to be feminine nurturers, not the nurtured." People are not used to women in the role of a soldier, but I think that as more and more women do take on this role, it will help women to escape from their stereotypical role in society.

(picture from http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/23640/thumbs/s-FEMALE-large.jpg)

The Past, the Present, The Future

"The family you come from isn't as important as the family you're going to have." - Ring Lardner

Everyday walking up to the third floor at school, I see a framed sign with this quote in it. And everyday, it bothers me. It just does not seem right. If anything, the family you come from should be

of equal importance to the family you are going to have - if you do get married and have another family.

The family that you come from is your past, which although it should not define you, it has a huge

impact on you. The bonds you create with your family allow you to learn to trust and love, and being part of a family allows you to be part of a unit. This not only gives a child security, but the opportunity to develop and see how family relationships work so when the time comes for you to start your own family,

you can create the same relationships. Obviously there are all different types of families, some in which the relationships and bonds are not so good, but you can't choose the family that you are born into.

I think this quote does not promote positive ideas - to me, it makes me think that I shouldn't focus on being a part of my family, working to create bonds with my siblings or establish good relationships with my parents because when I'm 25 or 30 or whatever and start a new family, it will be more important.

What's more, the family you have or the family you are going to have - I don't see them as two separate entities. They are connected. When I want to start my own family, I will be expanding my family, the one that has raised me, helped make me who I am, and allowed me to create long lasting relationships. My family started me off on the path I'm now. It is most definitely just as important as my future family.

Toxic Parents

I read an extremely interesting article today that dealt with the subject of abusive parents. The article talked about a therapist who has worked with many patients who suffer because of bad relationships they have with their parents. One women's mom was extremely abusive to her daughter over the years, but as her mom was dying, the women still felt like she should go and try to reconcile with her, even though her mom was always awful towards her when she tried to fix their relationship. Another young man was disowned by his parents because he came out as gay to them and they could not support his sexuality due to their religion. Even in an intervention staged by the therapist, the parents could not accept their son for what he was. The author of the article rights, "the assumption that parents are predisposed to love their children unconditionally and protect them from harm is not universally true." Although, I believe that it should be. In this case, the therapist recommended that this man stop trying to reconcile with his parents (after he attempted but did not succeed many times). He did, and eventually was able to overcome his depression, but he never forgot the absence of his parents.

Research shows that humans are hard-wired for bonding, the article says, so breaking this tie with abusive parents can be extremely hard. Furthermore, most abusive relationships are not always all bad. However, research also shows that childhood trauma can be very bad for the brain and can drastically impair adults' brains. Thus, having an abusive parent can be very detrimental to brain, development, and feelings. The therapist concludes that even though it may be severe, sometimes letting go of a parent is the best thing to do.

This article really struck a chord with me; I do not have abusive parents but I do know people who have abusive parents and it does not go without effect on them. But, I think that it is really sad that in the cases presented above, such drastic measures had to be taken. In my mind, parents should be accepting, nurturing, and selfless for their children. What do you think? Is it worth it to continue trying to mend relationships with an abusive parent or is it better to move on and focus on living a happy life? Does it all depend on the relationship, the situation?

Dealing with Grief

I saw an article from the Chicago Tribune called: After Maya, Officer keeps memory of 4-year old alive with every ticket. The article was about a policeman who sits by an intersection (Belden and Lincoln Park West avenues) everyday, waiting to hand out tickets to people who blow through the intersection. When he does give them a ticket, it has a sticker on it that reads: "REMEMBER MAYA! Maya was killed by a driver who failed to stop at a stop sign & yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. STOP AT STOP SIGNS! YIELD TO PEOPLE IN CROSSWALKS!"

Steve Shoup, the policeman, still tears up when he talks about the event three years later, a traumatic event that he witnessed. He said he has made it his mission to police Maya's and other intersections to enforce stop signs and yielding to pedestrian violations. Clearly, the his grief over this incident lighted within him a mission to take action and make sure that what happened to Maya does not happen again.

This article got me thinking on how people deal with grief. Understandably, after witnessing that horrific event, Mr. Shoup wants to do everything in his power to prevent it from happening again, even though he wasn't even at fault, nor did he know Maya personally. What factors then determine how we cope with grief? Is it based on our relationship to the person, our conscience, our place in life? I think it's personal for everyone, and people react differently in different situations, but some are probably more healthy than others. I think that what Mr. Shoup does is good for the community, but he shouldn't feel guilty for Maya's death.

Death of child leads to Sentancing of Couple

I was horrified today when I read an article about an eleven year old girl who died from diabetes recently because her parents refused to seek medical treatment for her, due to their religious beliefs. This lead to the sentencing of her parents to 30 days of jail time every year for 6 years. That's 6 months of jail time total, and 6 months that these parents won't be able to spend with their remaining two children, whom, the court ordered must be taken to the doctor if they are injured or in need of medical attention during these 6 years. What really horrified me though, was that even when the girl was so ill that she couldn't walk or talk, her parents refused to take her to the doctor. Imagine how helpless that girl was in that situation.



According to experts in the article, there have been at least 50 cases in the US since 1982 where children have been denied medical attention because of religious reasons. Lawmakers are trying to introduce legislation to remove religious exemptions for charges of neglect and abuse. I understand everyone has different religious views, and I respect that, but personally, I don't think children should have to suffer because of the religion their family has that they are born into. At 11 years old, how do you know that is what you believe in, anyway? And is it worth losing a child?



Should parents who refuse medical treatment for their children because of religious reasons be punished? And if the child is underage, should the parent still have the right to decide whether or not to seek medical attention?

No Summer Vacation?!

I read an article today that said President Obama wants to extend the school day and school year. He says American students are at a disadvantage compared to students around the globe because of the smaller amount of time they spend in school. I can see both positive and negative sides to this issue. Extending the school day would allow for increased learning and give students in poor areas a safe place to be until their parents are home from work. However, I personally think that it is important for kids to have after school activities to go to, instead of just a longer school day. I know that at New Trier we are lucky and have many after school programs from clubs to sports and theater, and a longer school day would make homework and extracurricular participation harder. Furthermore, I think that extending school into summer vacation would not be a good idea, because everyone deserves a break. What do you think? Is it worth it to extend the amount of time we spend in school?

Execution Fails

Romell Broom was convicted of an abduction/murder/rape in 1984. And, on Tuesday september 15, he was suppposed to be executed by lethal injection. However, this was the first time in the United States that an exectution by letah injection had failed, and then been rescheduled. For two hours, a team of technicians tried to find a vein to sucessfully inject the lethal drugs, and according to one of his lawyers, Adele Shanks, “He survived this execution attempt, and they really can’t do it again. It was cruel and unusual punishment.” She also said that he was wincing in pain throughout the procedure. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said that this is the third screwed up execution in three years, and many are wondering whether or not this is still an acceptable punishment to be used. Isn't the death penalty supposed to be humane? But putting someone through that kind of mental and physical pain twice does not seem constitutional or right to me. I personally think that he deserves a lifetime in jail for the crimes he committed, but definitely does not deserve to be "killed" again. Read Article

Toxic Water... still?

I read a very disturbing article earlier about a town near Charleston, West Virginia: their tap water situation there is so bad that in one family, the harmful metals in the water have given painful scabs and rashes to a kid, and another kid has had his teeth enamel eroded. Besides being harmful to the skin, the water is causing long term problems in the kidneys and nervous system.

The town is not very rural either, it is only 17 miles away from Charleston, the state capital. The article went on to describe that many chemical factories and manufacturing plants polluting the water have escaped fines and punishment, and while a Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, there is low water-pollution law enforcement and the water "does not meet public health goals". This does not seem right or fair. People should not have to suffer because of the unethical behavior of companies, and in an age of advanced technology, we should be able to guarantee clean water for everyone in the united states.

Baby Makes 21

Yesterday, I saw an article about the Duggar family - featured on TLC's "18 and Counting" because of their extremely large family. The article announced that the Duggars would be welcoming their 19th child in the spring. Whoa. Joining 10 boys and 8 girls, plus a new neice on the way, the new baby is going to take it's place among a ton of kids ranging from 21-2 years old.
After a miscarriage due to concievement while on the birth control pill, the Duggars decided that they would refrain from using birthcontrol and contraceptives and let God decide how many children they should have. Naturally, many people have mixed views on this family. As the oldest of four children in my family, I personally feel that being one of 19 would be absolutely crazy, and I wonder how the parents have time to deal with each child and give each child the individual attention they deserve. I think people should have the choice over how many children they want to have, but provided only that they can care for all of them. Should there be a limit on the amount of children a family should have? Is there a certain point in which the well-being of the other children is compromised in a large family?

The Breathalyzer Behind the Wheel

I saw an interesting article earlier about new hand held devices in cars that can detect intoxication by measuring the amount of alcohol on a person's breath. If it is over the intoxication level, then the car will not start. And, even having someone else (sober) try and start the car, the car will not be fooled by the device because it takes sample breath tests at random intervals. A fact that stunned me was that these devices could save up to 750 lives a year if everyone had one installed in their car. This is compared to the 13,000 deaths caused a year by intoxicated drivers, but still, it's a start. I think especially as a new driver on the road, this idea is very intriguing, because while I know I have control over my actions, I don't have control over any of the other drivers on the road. Especially not other young adults who have not yet learned how to be good decision makers. Clearly this is an example of the advancement of technology benefits humans. However, this got me thinking about the improvements of technology over time. Eventually, we will be able to control so much and on a larger scale (not relating to drunk driving), if technology prevents people from doing something and then perhaps making a mistake, how will people be able to learn from their life-mistakes and develop healthily? Will the continued increase of technology impact our lives so much eventually that it does not have a positive impact? At what point is technology too much? Or maybe, is it a good thing that technology is preventing people from ever making mistakes, because it is safer for everyone involved. But what about learning?
All in all though, I do think that this is a really great idea and should be mandatory for all drivers, especially for teenagers and those who violate the law and have obtained DUI's.