Should women be allowed in combat?
Article 1:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=0905
Summary: This article states that women should be allowed in combat. They state this because they believe that the position that the women hold should be based on skill not gender. There are about 350,000 women in the military, and about 30,000 are in Afganistan and Iraq fighting alongside the men. They are handicapping the military in a way that they are taking the women out of infantry units, when the military needs all the people that it can get. They believe that not allowing the women to fight is the will of the public and not the womens proven abilities.
Questioning the Author:
Why was this policy created in the first place?
What happened to all born equal?
Concernes:
Will women coming into the military cause disgruntled men?
Article 2:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=0905
Summary: This article states that women should not be allowed in the military. It believes this because there is physical differences like strength. She also believes that in combat, the soldiers have to carry 50 to 100 pounds of equiptment. They believe that that will be much too heavy for a women. They also are concered about the medical leaves like pregnancy. They also claim that there are differences in the women's training because they have a different amount of stength then the men.
Questioning the Author:
What if the women gain stength and can carry that weight?
What if you slowly ease the women's training into matching the mens?
Concernes:
This is cutting people from going ou and fighting for our country.
How would I solve this?
I would solve this by only allowing the women that had earned it join an infantry unit. I would do this because if they can prove that they are just as good as the men, and gain strength and make it that specified distance with a heavy pack, then they should be allowed to join. I believe that it is kind of generalizing stating that no girl can ever compare to a boy. Because, girls can do anything boys can if they set their mind to it.
How does this affect me as a citizen?
This affects me as a citizen because someday, a carrer that I might want to persue would be to fight in the military. That would affect me because if I enroll into the military, I will most likely get turned down because of my lack of Y chromosomes. And that would be dissapointing going through all that to be rejected because of your gender. There is nothing making you different from anyone else. What happened to everyone is created equal.
How does this connect to unit of study?
This connects to the unit we have just studied because we learned about our previous military, and how women were not allowed to fight back in the day either. Old habits die hard I guess.
How will I make a difference?
I will make a difference by spreading the word that it is unfair women cannot fight alongside the men. Also, I will attempt to get many people to send letters to Center for Military Readiness stating that the military cannot be compleatly ready if it lacks numbers. Hence, making them consider adding women to the infantry units.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Current Event Unit 3
Name: Natalie McKittrick
Title of Newspaper: NC Times
Title of Article: After protest, Congress puts off movie piracy bill
Web Address: http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/after-protest-congress-puts-off-movie-piracy-bill/article_db1f0615-3bc1-508f-bf5b-ab943f353a89.html
Topic Article Addresses: This article addresses SOPA and PIPA and the protests against these acts.
1) The acts SOPA and PIPA have been indefinatley postponed for there have been indefinatly postponed. They have postponed it for people and companies all over the world protested against it. Big name websites shut down and hackers got into the Justice Department and shut it down. They might not be able to bring it back, for it now has been so conspired against that it might be permenantly shut down.
2) This connects to what we are learning in class in the aspect of the Revolutionary War. It connects to this because the King or government is trying to take away the rights or privilages of the people and the citizens protested against it. By protesting and fightin for what they beleived in, they got what they wanted and deserved. This is very similar to the Patriots fighting the King for their freedom.
3) This connects to my life as a citizen. If the government would have won this battle, then it would have limited and taken away a lot of the websites and search engines that I use. So, if the two acts were carried out, I most likely would not be on this website today.
4) My opinion on the topic would be that it is wrong. For I do not believe that the government can limit the websites that you go on and leave only the small or approved ones. They would take away even the most harmless websites. I get that it is supposed to stop online piracy, but taking away practically every social networking website that is on the internet is unessesary.
Title of Newspaper: NC Times
Title of Article: After protest, Congress puts off movie piracy bill
Web Address: http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/after-protest-congress-puts-off-movie-piracy-bill/article_db1f0615-3bc1-508f-bf5b-ab943f353a89.html
Topic Article Addresses: This article addresses SOPA and PIPA and the protests against these acts.
1) The acts SOPA and PIPA have been indefinatley postponed for there have been indefinatly postponed. They have postponed it for people and companies all over the world protested against it. Big name websites shut down and hackers got into the Justice Department and shut it down. They might not be able to bring it back, for it now has been so conspired against that it might be permenantly shut down.
2) This connects to what we are learning in class in the aspect of the Revolutionary War. It connects to this because the King or government is trying to take away the rights or privilages of the people and the citizens protested against it. By protesting and fightin for what they beleived in, they got what they wanted and deserved. This is very similar to the Patriots fighting the King for their freedom.
3) This connects to my life as a citizen. If the government would have won this battle, then it would have limited and taken away a lot of the websites and search engines that I use. So, if the two acts were carried out, I most likely would not be on this website today.
4) My opinion on the topic would be that it is wrong. For I do not believe that the government can limit the websites that you go on and leave only the small or approved ones. They would take away even the most harmless websites. I get that it is supposed to stop online piracy, but taking away practically every social networking website that is on the internet is unessesary.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Current Event
Natalie McKittrick
Article: 1
NC Times
Prince William's posting to Falklands defended
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html
They would like to revoke Prince Williams ability to fight in the war at Falklands.
Upon Prince Williams department to the war at Falklands the British Government decided to defend the Prince from leaving. They beleive that it is a very dangerous feat that could kill one of ther heir to the throne. The war at Falklands is a raging battle that has benn going on for the past few years now.
This connects to the explotation and countries portion of the classes. Prince William is the Prince of Britan which used to be England which just so happened to be one of the many countries that had explores America. That is how it relates to the material that we are learning in classes.
As Price William has resently been I have also been restricted from my full potential due to the fact that times are changing and the world is not so "nice" anymore. For instance, I am not allowed to ride my bike or run to friends houses because "bad things" might happen. Although I have not been restricted by the British Government, but I have in fact been resricted by something very, very similar... parents...
My opinion on the topic would be to let him fight. I mean, come on! He is the prince! He does what he wants to! There are like hundreds of others lined up for the throne it is not like it will be a great loss, and at least it will be for his country and not of something dinky like old age.
Article: 1
NC Times
Prince William's posting to Falklands defended
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html
They would like to revoke Prince Williams ability to fight in the war at Falklands.
Upon Prince Williams department to the war at Falklands the British Government decided to defend the Prince from leaving. They beleive that it is a very dangerous feat that could kill one of ther heir to the throne. The war at Falklands is a raging battle that has benn going on for the past few years now.
This connects to the explotation and countries portion of the classes. Prince William is the Prince of Britan which used to be England which just so happened to be one of the many countries that had explores America. That is how it relates to the material that we are learning in classes.
As Price William has resently been I have also been restricted from my full potential due to the fact that times are changing and the world is not so "nice" anymore. For instance, I am not allowed to ride my bike or run to friends houses because "bad things" might happen. Although I have not been restricted by the British Government, but I have in fact been resricted by something very, very similar... parents...
My opinion on the topic would be to let him fight. I mean, come on! He is the prince! He does what he wants to! There are like hundreds of others lined up for the throne it is not like it will be a great loss, and at least it will be for his country and not of something dinky like old age.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Freedom of Speech Violation!
Natalie McKittrick
Article: 5
School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_7580f44d-f423-5985-b1a8-2c560ed5038c.html
Police might have disciplinary action places upon them for selling of offensive t-shirt
A police officers union in Northern California has angered a whole town because they began to sell offensive t-shirts. The shirt showed a child behind bars and read "U raise `em, we cage `em." The Twin Rivers Police Officers Association officials said that they had the idea in 2009 in order to raise money for fallen officers. Less than 30 shirts were sold and most at the price of $12 for their fellow union members. They are debating whether to pose disciplinary action upon them... but can they?
This connects to what we are learning in class in the Bill of Rights category. They would be violating the basic rights amendment. If they were to punish them for it they would be seizing their freedom of speech. In that category they can wear and say what they want. So therefore under the bill of rights they cannot punish them for this in anyway.
This connects to my life as a citizen. It connects because if I did not have the right to the freedom of speech I might not be able to wear some of the clothing that I have. I also greatly enjoy debates. Without the freedom of speech I might not be able to freely express my thoughts about the most interesting topics. Also some of the books that I greatly enjoy (Harry Potter and Septimus Heap come to mind) might not be published because of controversial content.
I have two opinions on the matter. My first is that they should not have posted it in the first place because it can be taken very offensively on many counts. For instance you might be insulting the mother, stating that she did not raise her child right. Also the T-shirt features a young boy, so that could also be quite offensive. My second is that they cannot proceed with disciplinary action on the topic and the Bill of Rights clearly states that.
Article: 5
School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_7580f44d-f423-5985-b1a8-2c560ed5038c.html
Police might have disciplinary action places upon them for selling of offensive t-shirt
A police officers union in Northern California has angered a whole town because they began to sell offensive t-shirts. The shirt showed a child behind bars and read "U raise `em, we cage `em." The Twin Rivers Police Officers Association officials said that they had the idea in 2009 in order to raise money for fallen officers. Less than 30 shirts were sold and most at the price of $12 for their fellow union members. They are debating whether to pose disciplinary action upon them... but can they?
This connects to what we are learning in class in the Bill of Rights category. They would be violating the basic rights amendment. If they were to punish them for it they would be seizing their freedom of speech. In that category they can wear and say what they want. So therefore under the bill of rights they cannot punish them for this in anyway.
This connects to my life as a citizen. It connects because if I did not have the right to the freedom of speech I might not be able to wear some of the clothing that I have. I also greatly enjoy debates. Without the freedom of speech I might not be able to freely express my thoughts about the most interesting topics. Also some of the books that I greatly enjoy (Harry Potter and Septimus Heap come to mind) might not be published because of controversial content.
I have two opinions on the matter. My first is that they should not have posted it in the first place because it can be taken very offensively on many counts. For instance you might be insulting the mother, stating that she did not raise her child right. Also the T-shirt features a young boy, so that could also be quite offensive. My second is that they cannot proceed with disciplinary action on the topic and the Bill of Rights clearly states that.
Should Women Start to Carry Guns
Natalie McKittirck
Article: 5
South Carolina sheriff urges women to carry guns
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_ce3c6eae-3d6a-5d5a-9764-250a55f90eae.html
How women should begin carrying guns due to recent event.
Have you seen what has been happening lately? That is why South Carolina sheriff urges women to begin carrying guns. Women should carry them in order to protect themselves. He would suggest that they use a .45-caliber weapon and conceal it in a fanny pack while exercising. He recommends He also recommend that they should also exercise in group rather than by themselves. Overall he thinks that a gun is much more affective than mace.
This connects to what we are learning in class in the Bill of Rights category. It represents the second right, the right to own a gun. But, with rights comes responsibility. In this case it is using the gun effectively. Also you must purchase the gun in your name and get it certified.
Because I am a girl, it very much so connects to my life because I enjoy going on runs. You always have to be prepared. That is why I run in a familiar territory where I know many people and they are all within close range. I have also heard of and seen on the news things that have happened recently that would make this sheriff want to enforce this.
My opinion on the topic is yes they should. People can recover from mace and some have made themselves immune to it. Where as if they see you holding a gun and you fire it, it will scare them off for good. You do not necessarily have to fire it at them. You can fire it to the side and they will run. In some cases, even just the sight of the gun can make someone run.
Article: 5
South Carolina sheriff urges women to carry guns
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_ce3c6eae-3d6a-5d5a-9764-250a55f90eae.html
How women should begin carrying guns due to recent event.
Have you seen what has been happening lately? That is why South Carolina sheriff urges women to begin carrying guns. Women should carry them in order to protect themselves. He would suggest that they use a .45-caliber weapon and conceal it in a fanny pack while exercising. He recommends He also recommend that they should also exercise in group rather than by themselves. Overall he thinks that a gun is much more affective than mace.
This connects to what we are learning in class in the Bill of Rights category. It represents the second right, the right to own a gun. But, with rights comes responsibility. In this case it is using the gun effectively. Also you must purchase the gun in your name and get it certified.
Because I am a girl, it very much so connects to my life because I enjoy going on runs. You always have to be prepared. That is why I run in a familiar territory where I know many people and they are all within close range. I have also heard of and seen on the news things that have happened recently that would make this sheriff want to enforce this.
My opinion on the topic is yes they should. People can recover from mace and some have made themselves immune to it. Where as if they see you holding a gun and you fire it, it will scare them off for good. You do not necessarily have to fire it at them. You can fire it to the side and they will run. In some cases, even just the sight of the gun can make someone run.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Texas Shooting Burros
Natalie McKittrick
Article: 4
NC Times
Texas is shooting donkeys, stirring burro backlash
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_b82c37d5-9777-558c-bc13-080bebbd1242.html
Texas is shooting their Burros
Texas is shooting their famous free-roaming burros. I have found that the Texas park rangers are deliberatly trying to wipeout hundreds of their free-roaming donkeys. They have killed 130 so far. Why? Because they beleive that the donkeys that wander over from Mexico simly don't belong. (How do the donkeys get over but the people don't?) Texas estimates that about 300 burros to be destuctive intruders. The mexican donkeys have been accused of hogging forage and lapping up precious water from the drought starved mountians. Where as the citizens who would like to save the burros have made one of the most popular petitions ever on www.change.com with more that 94,000 supporters.
This connects to the Bill of Rights in what we are studying. This connects to the first amendment's baisic rights. The right to petition. It also connects to the second right. The right to bear arms. It connects to the right to petition because they formed a petition on change.com and they were... well free to do it. It connects to the right to bear arms because they used a .308-caliber bolt-action rifle in order to kill them.
This connects to my life as a citizen as well. When I go to my house in Arizonia we often see the burros walking around in their packs or by themselfs. Once we even saw one five feet away from me that was a mother and her young. They are completely unable to defend themselves and put trust in others. I could not imagine killing one.
My opinion on the subject would be that it is complestly unnessesary. Honestly are we going to start killing people next because there are to many, they are not naitive to this country, and because we are killing the ozone layer. No! Who do you think started the drought in the first place. Most likely us! killing defenceless animals because they simply don't belong is not a probable cause! Those donkeys also attract tourists to Texas because the Big Bend is inhabited by them! Also I would like to ask how the donkeys get accross the border and the people don't? Yeah thought so. We don't walk around shooting illegal imigrants because they are using up our resourses. No! We don't! So why should we kill a load of donkeys for it! We shouldn't!
Article: 4
NC Times
Texas is shooting donkeys, stirring burro backlash
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_b82c37d5-9777-558c-bc13-080bebbd1242.html
Texas is shooting their Burros
Texas is shooting their famous free-roaming burros. I have found that the Texas park rangers are deliberatly trying to wipeout hundreds of their free-roaming donkeys. They have killed 130 so far. Why? Because they beleive that the donkeys that wander over from Mexico simly don't belong. (How do the donkeys get over but the people don't?) Texas estimates that about 300 burros to be destuctive intruders. The mexican donkeys have been accused of hogging forage and lapping up precious water from the drought starved mountians. Where as the citizens who would like to save the burros have made one of the most popular petitions ever on www.change.com with more that 94,000 supporters.
This connects to the Bill of Rights in what we are studying. This connects to the first amendment's baisic rights. The right to petition. It also connects to the second right. The right to bear arms. It connects to the right to petition because they formed a petition on change.com and they were... well free to do it. It connects to the right to bear arms because they used a .308-caliber bolt-action rifle in order to kill them.
This connects to my life as a citizen as well. When I go to my house in Arizonia we often see the burros walking around in their packs or by themselfs. Once we even saw one five feet away from me that was a mother and her young. They are completely unable to defend themselves and put trust in others. I could not imagine killing one.
My opinion on the subject would be that it is complestly unnessesary. Honestly are we going to start killing people next because there are to many, they are not naitive to this country, and because we are killing the ozone layer. No! Who do you think started the drought in the first place. Most likely us! killing defenceless animals because they simply don't belong is not a probable cause! Those donkeys also attract tourists to Texas because the Big Bend is inhabited by them! Also I would like to ask how the donkeys get accross the border and the people don't? Yeah thought so. We don't walk around shooting illegal imigrants because they are using up our resourses. No! We don't! So why should we kill a load of donkeys for it! We shouldn't!
Sunday, October 30, 2011
SeaWorld Enslaves Orcas?
Natalie McKittrick
Article: 3
NC Times
PETA accuses SeaWorld of enslaving orcas
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_3aa50631-64cd-58ec-953d-fc3b73b92e0f.html
SeaWorld Enslaving Orcas
Should animals have the same rights as humans? PETA has accused the popular amusement park of enslaving their orca whales. PETA believes that in this trial the animals should not be deprived of rights 5-8 like a speedy trial, excessive fines, public trial etc. They believe that under the definition of slave ( slaves - kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit) that the animals should not be denied these rights and they should be released back into the wild because "They don't seem to adapt to captivity. I would say they're miserable." said Naomi Rose, the Humane Society's marine mammal biologist. Where as SeaWolrd believes that "I think they are in better conditions here than in the wild," said Jenny Raymond who was visiting from Switzerland.
This connects in many ways to what we are learning in class. We have learned about the Bill of Rights and all of the things that the rights 5-8 protects you from. We have also read many situations and had to write whether it applied to the situation and what right it protected. But, in those cases they always had applied to the people and their belongings. In this case they are trying to extend those rights to making them apply to other animals as well.
This, (beleive it or not) connects to my life as well. I have been to see the Shamu shows as a child. The orcas preforming did not look in fact malnourished at all. They got love and attention from the trainers, not to mention treats. Also, it is all voulentary if they did not want to do the trick they did not have to. They just like the treats!
I do not beleive this is nessesary. The animals look happy and fine, and looking at the article PETA did not have much evidence. They just kind of reapeated the same things over and over again so that they got their points across. I do not think that SeaWorld should have captured one in the first place. But, the rest of them (the ones that were born there) that is there home, that is the only place they know, it would kill them to set them free at this point in their lifetime.
Article: 3
NC Times
PETA accuses SeaWorld of enslaving orcas
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_3aa50631-64cd-58ec-953d-fc3b73b92e0f.html
SeaWorld Enslaving Orcas
Should animals have the same rights as humans? PETA has accused the popular amusement park of enslaving their orca whales. PETA believes that in this trial the animals should not be deprived of rights 5-8 like a speedy trial, excessive fines, public trial etc. They believe that under the definition of slave ( slaves - kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit) that the animals should not be denied these rights and they should be released back into the wild because "They don't seem to adapt to captivity. I would say they're miserable." said Naomi Rose, the Humane Society's marine mammal biologist. Where as SeaWolrd believes that "I think they are in better conditions here than in the wild," said Jenny Raymond who was visiting from Switzerland.
This connects in many ways to what we are learning in class. We have learned about the Bill of Rights and all of the things that the rights 5-8 protects you from. We have also read many situations and had to write whether it applied to the situation and what right it protected. But, in those cases they always had applied to the people and their belongings. In this case they are trying to extend those rights to making them apply to other animals as well.
This, (beleive it or not) connects to my life as well. I have been to see the Shamu shows as a child. The orcas preforming did not look in fact malnourished at all. They got love and attention from the trainers, not to mention treats. Also, it is all voulentary if they did not want to do the trick they did not have to. They just like the treats!
I do not beleive this is nessesary. The animals look happy and fine, and looking at the article PETA did not have much evidence. They just kind of reapeated the same things over and over again so that they got their points across. I do not think that SeaWorld should have captured one in the first place. But, the rest of them (the ones that were born there) that is there home, that is the only place they know, it would kill them to set them free at this point in their lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)