In the article "Historically Incorrect Canoodling" author Stephanie Coontz brings to the light the how Valentine's day came about.
One example that supports this statement is in the article where it states that Valentine was actually a christian priest martyred in the third century. As stated in the article it says that Valentine fell in love with his jailor's daughter and wrote her a poignant goodbye letter and it was signed "from your Valentine".
Another example to state how Valentine's day came about is stated in the article where Feb. 14 St. Valentine's Day wasnt being celebrated as an romantic holliday, but it was in honor of Juno, which is a Roman goddess of love and marriage.
I found this article interesting because it shows that one person can change the world and make it into a long lasting event. For example, in the article it says that it would be very hard to find love in the first 1,500 years of church history. Even though it may have been hard to find love, Valentine fell in love with his jailor's daughter. After going after what he has believed in, his beliefs turned the city around because now when every 14th of february comes up, the men of the city line up to pick a name out of the jar to find which girls will be their sexual partner for the rest of the year.
Another reason why I found this article interesting is because back then Valentine's day wasnt even known or thought of and today, all everyone does is either propse to their loved ones, renew their vows, or express their passion and love for their significant other.
"Popular celebrations of valentine's day gained ground in the late 17th century, but not until 100 years later did most Europeans and Americans begin to agree that marriage should be based on love and young people should freely choose their own partners. Even in the 19th century there were still many defenders of traditional marriage who predicted that the new vogue for "marriage by fascination" instead of hardheaded negotiation would undermine the social order, and that high expectations of marriage would lead only to discontent".
This statement stood out to me the most because in 498 A.D, there was no Valentine's day, or if you were getting married it wasnt about being in love, it was about making your own business or getting more land ownership.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
All Work & No Play
In "All Work & No Play" author Esther Entin verifies how children's free time is continually decreasing and is keeping them from turning into confident adults.
One example that supports my answer is when peter Gray states, "In another study, mothers were asked to compare their own memories of their playtime, to their children's current schedule. Eighty-five percent noted that their children played outdoors less frequently and for shorter periods of time than they had. The mothers noted that they restricted their own children's outdoor play because of safety concerns, a fact echoed in other surveys where parents mentioned child predators, road traffic, and bullies as reasons for restricting their children's outdoor play.
Another example that supports my answer is when Gray announces, "There has been a significant increase in anxiety and depression from 1950 to present day in teens and young adults, and several studies documenting this rise. One showed that five to eight times as many children and college students reported clinically significant depression or anxiety than 50 years ago and another documented a similar trend in the fourteen to sixteen year old age group between 1948 to 1989.
I found this article very interesting because many parents today feel as though they can live the life they wanted as children through their kids. Many adults try to force their kids to do something only they wanted to do and make them do certain things that they couldn't do when they were younger.
Although, author Peter Gray states a very important fact that I believe should be read multiple times over and over.
"Suicide rates quadrupled from 1950 to 2005 for children less than fifteen years and for teens and young adults ages 15-25, they doubled. I believe that the loss of unstructured, free play for play's sake is at the core of this alarming observation and that as a society, we shoud reassess the role of free play and the factors that seem to have all but eliminated it from our children's lives."
This statement stood out to me because it shows that Gray isn't afraid to speak his mind and stand up against parents taking away their children's free time.
I also thought this article was very interestign because it was compared tro my life as a child also.
Although not including the depression but my parents used to watch me as I played on the playground, but they constantly told me what I could and couldn't do at that matter of time.
However, until this day my mom still tells me about what she couldn't do when she was younger and she refuses to let me do certain things that I want to do because she couldn't do it.
One example that supports my answer is when peter Gray states, "In another study, mothers were asked to compare their own memories of their playtime, to their children's current schedule. Eighty-five percent noted that their children played outdoors less frequently and for shorter periods of time than they had. The mothers noted that they restricted their own children's outdoor play because of safety concerns, a fact echoed in other surveys where parents mentioned child predators, road traffic, and bullies as reasons for restricting their children's outdoor play.
Another example that supports my answer is when Gray announces, "There has been a significant increase in anxiety and depression from 1950 to present day in teens and young adults, and several studies documenting this rise. One showed that five to eight times as many children and college students reported clinically significant depression or anxiety than 50 years ago and another documented a similar trend in the fourteen to sixteen year old age group between 1948 to 1989.
I found this article very interesting because many parents today feel as though they can live the life they wanted as children through their kids. Many adults try to force their kids to do something only they wanted to do and make them do certain things that they couldn't do when they were younger.
Although, author Peter Gray states a very important fact that I believe should be read multiple times over and over.
"Suicide rates quadrupled from 1950 to 2005 for children less than fifteen years and for teens and young adults ages 15-25, they doubled. I believe that the loss of unstructured, free play for play's sake is at the core of this alarming observation and that as a society, we shoud reassess the role of free play and the factors that seem to have all but eliminated it from our children's lives."
This statement stood out to me because it shows that Gray isn't afraid to speak his mind and stand up against parents taking away their children's free time.
I also thought this article was very interestign because it was compared tro my life as a child also.
Although not including the depression but my parents used to watch me as I played on the playground, but they constantly told me what I could and couldn't do at that matter of time.
However, until this day my mom still tells me about what she couldn't do when she was younger and she refuses to let me do certain things that I want to do because she couldn't do it.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Do We Have The Courage To Stop This
In "Do We Have The Courage To Stop This" author Nicholas D. Kristof brings to the light how easy it is to buy guns off of people and how the rates are increasing for kids ages 5-14 dying from them.
One example from the article that supports the given statement is when a facebook friend included in the article stated his opinion on how it's more easy to buy a gun than to adopt a pet.
Another example that supports my answer from the article is when the aut3hor states "And don't say that it won't make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun. We're not going to eliminate gun deaths any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could reuce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually."
This article is very interesting to me because someone is finally taking matters into their own hands about gun regulations. Not only is the author stating their opinion on how they feel about no one standing up to the NRA, but they also explain how the rates will affect others and how safe children would be.
Another example that stood out to me in this article is when the author says "The tragedy isn't one school shooting, it's the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and in suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terroroist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
This statement stood out to me because, the death rates of Americans should not be higher than the death rates of victims occuring in the war. I prefer that there'd be a specific function to track down the particular gunman if there was a shooting with that particular gun.
Although with many poeple not really stepping up and doing anything about the buying of guns, Australia managed to take things into consideration.
"In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people inspired the nations conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands."
I found this example very interesting because unlike other areas, australia took matters into their own hands and decided to ban certain guns in the city.
However, this states that they're not like other people and aren't afraid to step up the NRA.
Australia did what they had to do keep victims harmless and make their country safe.
One example from the article that supports the given statement is when a facebook friend included in the article stated his opinion on how it's more easy to buy a gun than to adopt a pet.
Another example that supports my answer from the article is when the aut3hor states "And don't say that it won't make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun. We're not going to eliminate gun deaths any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could reuce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually."
This article is very interesting to me because someone is finally taking matters into their own hands about gun regulations. Not only is the author stating their opinion on how they feel about no one standing up to the NRA, but they also explain how the rates will affect others and how safe children would be.
Another example that stood out to me in this article is when the author says "The tragedy isn't one school shooting, it's the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and in suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terroroist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
This statement stood out to me because, the death rates of Americans should not be higher than the death rates of victims occuring in the war. I prefer that there'd be a specific function to track down the particular gunman if there was a shooting with that particular gun.
Although with many poeple not really stepping up and doing anything about the buying of guns, Australia managed to take things into consideration.
"In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people inspired the nations conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands."
I found this example very interesting because unlike other areas, australia took matters into their own hands and decided to ban certain guns in the city.
However, this states that they're not like other people and aren't afraid to step up the NRA.
Australia did what they had to do keep victims harmless and make their country safe.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Give Lance Another Chance ?
In "Give Lance Another Chance" CNN brings people's opinions to life about whether they should forgive Lance Armstrong for taking steroids during professional cycling and how he should get all his Golden Titles taken away from him.
One opinion from the article is from Frida Ghitis. She thinks that Armstrong still has a chance to redeem himself. Ghitis states, "Armstrong still has a chance to redeem himself. But he should do it in the arena where he had the greatest impact. He became famous because he spoke to all of us about being human, He should make a new career of speaking out about the cost of living a lie."
Another opinion from the article is from Roxanne Jones. Jones states, "Lance Armstrong, who malisculously lied for more than a decade, who i watched from my sideline seat in sports to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me. There are too many reasons to question his apology."
Another opinion is from Kevin Powell. Powell states, "I see the Lance Armstrong story as a tragedy and an opportunity. It's a tragedy becasue he lied for so long to many people. Lying is not the way to live one's life, ever, especially if you've positioned yourself as a role model and a hero. But I am not here to judge nor convict him. We all have our flaws, we all fall short as human beings. So, yes, I do think anyone can be redeemed, and should be given another chance if he shows true remorse and make amends for his bad deeds."
I found this article very interesting because of how many people have different opinions on if Armstrong should be forgiven.
I think that Armstrong should apologize for what he's done & for lying after so many years, but also agreeing with Kevin Powell I don't judge anyone for what they do, or how they do it. I'm pretty sure many other athletes have cheated once in a while, it's just the matter of fact that Armstrong has gotten reported or got caught trying to add people onto his "dope" team.
One opinion from the article is from Frida Ghitis. She thinks that Armstrong still has a chance to redeem himself. Ghitis states, "Armstrong still has a chance to redeem himself. But he should do it in the arena where he had the greatest impact. He became famous because he spoke to all of us about being human, He should make a new career of speaking out about the cost of living a lie."
Another opinion from the article is from Roxanne Jones. Jones states, "Lance Armstrong, who malisculously lied for more than a decade, who i watched from my sideline seat in sports to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me. There are too many reasons to question his apology."
Another opinion is from Kevin Powell. Powell states, "I see the Lance Armstrong story as a tragedy and an opportunity. It's a tragedy becasue he lied for so long to many people. Lying is not the way to live one's life, ever, especially if you've positioned yourself as a role model and a hero. But I am not here to judge nor convict him. We all have our flaws, we all fall short as human beings. So, yes, I do think anyone can be redeemed, and should be given another chance if he shows true remorse and make amends for his bad deeds."
I found this article very interesting because of how many people have different opinions on if Armstrong should be forgiven.
I think that Armstrong should apologize for what he's done & for lying after so many years, but also agreeing with Kevin Powell I don't judge anyone for what they do, or how they do it. I'm pretty sure many other athletes have cheated once in a while, it's just the matter of fact that Armstrong has gotten reported or got caught trying to add people onto his "dope" team.
Civil War In Syria Raises Questions About When To Intervene
In "Civil War In Syria Raises Questions About When To Intervene" PBSNEWSHOUR tells us how almost 200,000 people has to move to more calmer and quieter places because of the civil war that's going on. Also how different countries are accepting refugees but as many people as there is, they can not continue to take care of another full population. Therefore many people such as 2.5 million, are being affected by this and aren't being sheltered, fed, or even cared for.
One example that supports my answer is in the article it says "Temporary camps built to house large numbers of refugees are only for a short-term solution, as refugees often cannot obtain illegal rights in their new host country. These countries must perform a balancing act as they try to assist the flood of needy poeple while not putting a strain on their own citizens and resources".
Another example that supports this answer is in the article when many people start to wonder if the U.S should get involved because of the many innocent people that'll most likely be caught in the cross fire while the war is going on.
I found this article very interesting because of how many people are walking far distances just so they can find peace and sleep at night without worrying about if they'll live for the next day. Although, with the civil war going on and everything, the president of that country doesn't seem to acare about anyone else's life because he's killing innocent people day by day.
Another reason I found this article interesting is because of how the U.S is interferring, they've made it clear that they care for the victims in this situation and they've tried to make a peace offering with the people that are intervening with the situation.
This article made me wonder about the safety of the U.S because with us interferring, will they ever try to go against us because of us standing up or bstepping in the middle? But then again, what will happen to these innocent people if we dont stick up for them, will it be too late, and everyone is already gone?
One example that supports my answer is in the article it says "Temporary camps built to house large numbers of refugees are only for a short-term solution, as refugees often cannot obtain illegal rights in their new host country. These countries must perform a balancing act as they try to assist the flood of needy poeple while not putting a strain on their own citizens and resources".
Another example that supports this answer is in the article when many people start to wonder if the U.S should get involved because of the many innocent people that'll most likely be caught in the cross fire while the war is going on.
I found this article very interesting because of how many people are walking far distances just so they can find peace and sleep at night without worrying about if they'll live for the next day. Although, with the civil war going on and everything, the president of that country doesn't seem to acare about anyone else's life because he's killing innocent people day by day.
Another reason I found this article interesting is because of how the U.S is interferring, they've made it clear that they care for the victims in this situation and they've tried to make a peace offering with the people that are intervening with the situation.
This article made me wonder about the safety of the U.S because with us interferring, will they ever try to go against us because of us standing up or bstepping in the middle? But then again, what will happen to these innocent people if we dont stick up for them, will it be too late, and everyone is already gone?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Philadelphia Superintendent Identifies Schools He Intends To Close
In "Philadelphia Superintendent Identifies Schools He Intends To Close" Author Kristen A. Graham brings to the light how many schools will be shut down this coming march because of low financial problems.
One example that supports this statement is when Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. says how 22 elementary, 4 middle, and 11 high schools will be shut down in nearly every neighborhood if adopted by the School Reform Commission.
Another example that supports the school district having financial problems is when the article informs readers on how the district recently borrowed $300 million to pay bills and issue paychecks.
I found this article very interesting because of how tense not olny students but teachers are on which schools will be shut down and how many jobs will be lost. Therefore, if this many schools shut down then 17,000 students will have to attend new schools and even make new friends. Not only will 2,000 teachers be unemployed but it'll be even tough for them to find new jobs.
This article is important in my life because of how many new students will be squeezed into classrooms, and the result of so many students in one classroom either there won't be as much attention given as usual, or there won't be any work getting done because of the students that constantly interrupt the class' learning.
Some students aren't fast learners like others, and there are even those students that just doesn't care about their education.
Another reason why this article is important and affects my life is because of which students will be sent into different schools. Knowing that there are still bullies lingering around, how will teachers and pricipals handle the violence, or will the violence rates even increase?
I feel as though this article is very affective to people's lives and the decisions that the Superintendents are making will be tense and many pepole will be raged with anger because of the outcome of this situation.
Another example that supports the district having financial problems is stated in the text which says that many schools and buildings will be shut down because of the utility use. The use of utilities in buildings increased from 67% to 80%.
I think that with all these different schools being shut down and students being shifted over into new schools the utility bill will be double the amount. If there is a high bill for the utility use now, the amount will only increase because more people will be using electricity during school hours.
Although with the costs of utilites increasing and everything, I don't understand why the Superintendent would raise the SAT scores if they're shifting students into different schools which will multiply the number of students per classrooms, which would result to students not concentrating on their work with all the commotion going on in the class.
One example that supports this statement is when Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. says how 22 elementary, 4 middle, and 11 high schools will be shut down in nearly every neighborhood if adopted by the School Reform Commission.
Another example that supports the school district having financial problems is when the article informs readers on how the district recently borrowed $300 million to pay bills and issue paychecks.
I found this article very interesting because of how tense not olny students but teachers are on which schools will be shut down and how many jobs will be lost. Therefore, if this many schools shut down then 17,000 students will have to attend new schools and even make new friends. Not only will 2,000 teachers be unemployed but it'll be even tough for them to find new jobs.
This article is important in my life because of how many new students will be squeezed into classrooms, and the result of so many students in one classroom either there won't be as much attention given as usual, or there won't be any work getting done because of the students that constantly interrupt the class' learning.
Some students aren't fast learners like others, and there are even those students that just doesn't care about their education.
Another reason why this article is important and affects my life is because of which students will be sent into different schools. Knowing that there are still bullies lingering around, how will teachers and pricipals handle the violence, or will the violence rates even increase?
I feel as though this article is very affective to people's lives and the decisions that the Superintendents are making will be tense and many pepole will be raged with anger because of the outcome of this situation.
Another example that supports the district having financial problems is stated in the text which says that many schools and buildings will be shut down because of the utility use. The use of utilities in buildings increased from 67% to 80%.
I think that with all these different schools being shut down and students being shifted over into new schools the utility bill will be double the amount. If there is a high bill for the utility use now, the amount will only increase because more people will be using electricity during school hours.
Although with the costs of utilites increasing and everything, I don't understand why the Superintendent would raise the SAT scores if they're shifting students into different schools which will multiply the number of students per classrooms, which would result to students not concentrating on their work with all the commotion going on in the class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)