Crime & Punishment

    In the article Crime & Punishment in the New York Times magazine Patricia Smith quoted that "The Supreme Court recently struck down mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles. The ruling signals a shift in how the law treats young offenders." One prisoner that committed a crime when he was 14 years old is Dominic Culpepper. At the age of 14 Dominic beat a neighbor to death with a baseball bat and is now serving at Florida State Prison. Another prisoner Rebecca Falcon took part of murder when she was 15. Rebecca got drunk and took back a huge amount of whiskey and got in a cab with her friend, who was 18 years old. Her friend had a gun then a few minutes later the cab driver was dead on the ground. Rebecca has life in prison just like Dominic. But now Supreme Court judges start to second guess about how younger teens who commit crimes should have a second chance and they should have life without parole. 

    Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger said that, "There are some truly horrible crimes committed by 17-year-olds, and those crimes deserve life without parole." To me this means that judges are letting teens that have committed a crime slide and not have to do a lifetime of parole. When judges let teens out of jail you never know what would be the next thing that they do. If teens continue to do things like that and get away with it teens would go crazy and just would be all over the place. But there are places that teens can go when they commit a crime. It's like jail but it's for younger ages Teens and children are what make up half of this world so this world would be destroyed if teens could continue to get out of jail. 

Is Valentines Day True Love??

   In the article "Historically Incorrect Canoodling" by Stephanie Coontz from New York Times she describes how Valentines Day really wasn't for couples being together and being romantic. . Also, in the article marriage horrified people who invented Valentines Day. It was for people not to be in love, married and to have sex. Stephanie says in the article that even when people were married the really couldn't have sex. If they did it had to not pleasurable and sex only was if you wanted to have kids. But now people use Valentines Day as a romance movie. Where they go to the movies, going on dates, cuddling and etc. When back then Valentine's Day was invented for people not to be in love but to not do any type of Valentines Day activity. 

 My opinion is that Valentines Day should go back to being people not in love like before because I personally i don't like Valentines Day. But then again you still have family on Valentines Day that you can love and cherish just for being there in your life. Another thing is there are other people who still are in love and would be in love no matter what anyone says, so you can't really do anything about it.  

Then you have a bad side to this situation because on Valentines Day young people lose their virginity and then the next day the person might leave then your alone. So you really have to watch out for who you're with on Valentines Day.That was the only good thing about back in the day that people couldn't do things like that on Valentines Day and they would play it safe.

Unveiling Europe

    In the article "Unveiling Europe" by Veronica Majerol explains that in France there is an new law that forbids covering one's face in public. For most religious women it affected an estimate of 2,000 French Muslim women. One women named Hind Ahmas , 33, has broken the law more than she can count. She broken the law because she wears her Niqab which is a head-to-toe veil that only has a slit to see out of. If women had to do this all over the world them their would be plenty of people getting fines...everyday. It's a women's constitutional right to wear her veil anywhere at anytime. In the article Veronica Majerol explains that veils in the U.S. is a Florida judge ruled in 2003 that a Muslim woman had to remove her nijab for a driver's license photo. 

   There also are other places that have a local prohibitions on veils. Places like Italy, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Great Britain, and Denmark. Marco Perolini, at Amnesty's London office said "This is an issue relating to the right of freedom of expression in general." He says the ban also infringes on women's freedoms of speech and belief. 

   I think that it's bad to have a policy on whether or not women can wear their veils. If it's their religion they should be able to wear their veil. But their are pro's and con's to this situation. A few pro's are women wear their veils because it's their religion it's almost like breaking their laws when they take their veils off. There are many more con's than you think. For example, little girl that just got found in January after being kidnapped. There was a women that had a veil in that kidnapped her..what if she wasn't really Muslim and just had the veil to get the little girl. Then when people rob stores or banks then it could really be a man in a veil that just put a veil on so no one can get his identity. You never know. Going out in public with a veil or Niqab on can be a good thing but then again a bad thing. 

The New Face Of America

    In the article "The New Face Of America" by Veronica Majerol she explains how before there were more whites than blacks, Asians , Hispanic or any other race before. Actually before in the 1950's whites came to a percentage of 89%. While others were 11%. Now that years have gone by whites percentage in America have dropped. Whites percentage in 2011 was 63%, Hispanic/Latino was 17%, Black was 15% , Asian was 5% and then other was 4%. People have thought about what would happen once more years go by will whites be a percentage of 34% in 2014 or 20% in 2016. In the article Majerol gets down to the basics of how whites percentage have gone down. One reason is because African-Americans, Hispanic/Latino or any other race are having more babies than whites. Another reason is because now that it is fine to date people outside your race (well, for some people.) People are having biracial children. If a Hispanic/Latino was to have a baby with someone white then the baby would be mixed with white and Hispanic or Latino. The baby wouldn't just be white. Now if it is both mates were white then the baby would be white but other than that two people of different race if they had a baby it would be half and half race. The last reason on why whites percentages are low because most whites are old people and if younger whites aren't having as many babies then the babies will soon grow old then the cycle would continue to go on but then soon the numbers will be lower than ever. 

   My opinion is if whites don't have babies as much as blacks, Asians, Hispanic/Latino or any other race one that's there decision and then again you never know of a change would come and then whites start having babies. We all can't predict the future. Well, none of us can. Another thing is we still do have other races that percentages would probably go down and then whites go up. But the only thing about that is if whites percentages are already done then it would take time to see improvement. It's the same thing with grades in school or anything else. It takes a long time to get that 63% up to 100%. 

   

Lance Should Have Another Chance??? :):

   In the article "Give Lance another Chance" CNN asked for views on whether people should forgive cyclist Lance Armstrong after his apology. Everyone knows that Lance Armstrong had Cancer and that he fought that illness. Once he did he became the best cyclist in the world. "His triumph over adversity captured the imagination of millions around the world, including people like me, who don't usually spend a lot of time absorbed in following sports news" said Frida Ghitis a world affair columinist for the Miami Herald who believes that Lance still has a chance to redeem himself.

   For most people they belive that Lance should craw under under since he pretty much lied about Living Strong. Roxanna Jones a founding editor of ESPN The Magazine, Roxanna quotes "Lance Armstrong, who maliciousle lied for more than a decade, who I watched from my sideline seat in sports try to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no secound chance from me." People have taken this as if people make mistake and do things to the point that you want to over acheive so you do things harsh sometimes to get where you want to go. Then you have people who take it where they say if you fought a seroius illness that 9 out of 10 people would never survive and you show that by starting a foundation and winning a Nobel Peace Prize for example but all that information that got you up to the top wasn't yours and that you stole it that's sad.

   My opinion is that Lance shouldn't be forgiven. You didn't see Alex (Lemonade) steal recipes for special Lemonade or money just to help raise money for cancer. People had influenced him or even took the time out of their day just to even see him in one of his tours. People with the same illness as him might have thought that could be me I'll survive. But once people found out that he lied or cheated then they would sit back and think they have no chance and would give up. Lance really shoudn't be forgiven because if he influenced me and I heard this news I wouldn't be able to look at him.

  That's like someone saying they found a cure for cancer when the whole time it was just a sticker over a tylenol bottle.

Civil War in Syria

   In the article "Civil War in Syria Raises Question About When to Intervene" the article brings out the topics who is involved? And weather or not United States should intervene with the Civil War in Syria. The fighting in the Civil War is between the military loyal to Syrian President Bashar al- Assad and anti-regime protest fighters. Ever since this civil War has begun it has made it dangerous for other people to be in their homes. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that over 200,000 people have fled their homes to be in a more safe and peaceful environment.

   The big question that's on everyone's mind is should the United Sates intervene with the Civil War. The United States trying to figure out if the should intervene with the War is a bad idea. The United States is already trying to solve the situation with gun control and other problems so why put a big situation like this in your hands. The United Sates has been in enough and doesn't need to spend all of that money for the War. Like there are other people who agree and the don't want any of their family members to he that coming from he/she.

   In fact the Untied States still will have to worry about money,troops, and other peoples lives. If the United States gets involved their could be a possible chance that people in the United States my start to be on on President Bashar al- Assad's side or anti regime protest fighters and that would be a bigger and badder decision to make. My opinion is that I think that the 
Untied States shouldn't get involved because we have our own problems. 
   

Work Hard, Play Later

   In the article "All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed" by Esther Entin it describes that parents and other things could be the reason that if children don't have playtime then it can interfere with their future selves. For example in the article it says under the topic "Who and what is interfering with children's play." Esther explained that parents are the ones who hover over and then take over children's play. For example kids do have to do homework but back when I was younger it was either come in the house after school and do your homework then go outside or it was go outside eat during that time come in and shower, homework then sleep. So either way I went outside but you need to have tome to do homework. Or you have the parents where they were really strict and you weren't going outside until you did chores and homework etc. That would take time out of that child's or children's play because sometimes it gets dark faster and their are crazies at night.   Next, children need to be able to communicate with other children. If there playing hide-and-seek then everyone needs to be able to say who will hide who will find who. If they disagree and argue maybe then that would be a good thing sort of. When children have their debates on what is going to happen throughout the game it will not only encourage them to communicate and debate on things but to meet new people while they are playing their game.  My opinion is that children should be able to have free time at school and at home. When I was younger there were teenagers , elders and adults that would be outside so if something happened then they would see what happened or weather someone child had gotten hurt. If the parent (s) or guardian can take the time to go sit on the step or walk to the park and sit down and watch their kid play then that wouldn't be so hard for children to not get their free time. Plus they can watch their kids if their being bullied, just or if the parent see crazy people out there.