Click here to download the works cited for the document as a MS Word .doc file
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
PETA
Overall, I'm not very happy with PETA's choice of imagery, and generally think that it takes things a step too far. I'm fully aware that animals are treated badly, but I don't think the way to get people to your cause is to scare and shock them.
It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!
PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.
It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!
PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
MJ Editorial
Over the years, the city of Seattle has slowly knocked down most of the penalties surrounding the use of marijuana, and for good reasons. We now live in a city where the penalty for posession of the green stuff warrants only a small fine and no jail time, and where even that penalty is rarely handed out by itself. Police doing crowd control at HempFest walk through endless clouds of marijuana smoke, yet no arrests are made. Officially, personal marijuana use is a lower police priority than jaywalking. It seems that the police here have realized they have more important things to worry about than non-violent marijuana smokers.
It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.
The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.
Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.
It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.
The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.
Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.
Responsible Parenting
In light of both of these editorials, several things come to mind. Being a responsible mother (or father) requires more than just time, and more than just effort. It requires a tremendous amount of money and the ability to dedicate a large portion of your life to the child. Being a responsible parent involves making the decision to have a child at the right time in your life, and to not have too many kids than you can take care of at any given time.
If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.
How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.
If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.
How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
