Genetically Modified Organisms: A Blessing or a Curse?

This article is about genetically changing organisms and the benefits and controversies. This article was very informing. I never actually thought about what would happen if we genetically altered our foods.  A very good point this article made was that this has not been going on long enough to know the long term effects to the human body, the environment, or the organisms being altered themselves.  The benefits are enhanced tasted, faster growing crops, and improved animal health. The controversies, though, I think outweigh the good.  This can create gene transfer, unintentional crossing of genes, and the worst being creating bacteria that are resistant to ALL antibiotics.  This article also shows that the United States produces 59% of the genetically modified foods.  So just think, what are we actually eating?

Left Behind, Way Behind

I think this article made a very good point.  Even though all schools are supposed to level the playing field, education varies greatly on the type of household a person comes from.  If a person comes from a high-income household, they may be going to a private school are in one of the best public schools.  If a person comes from a middle-income household, they are more likely to be in a better school and maybe not the best.  If a person comes from a lower-income school, chances are they may go to a poor school or may not even go to school at all.  If they are from a lower-income family then the person is more than likely more focused on working for money then actually going to school.  The article makes a scary point, " By the fourth grade, low income students read about three grade levels behind nonpoor students."  The article suggests making students be in school longer, getting qualified teachers in all classrooms, or to connect lower-income areas with surrounding communities.  The fact is that not everyone is receiving the same education and something needs to be done about it.  Income should not determine what kind of education a child will receive.

On Facebook, Biggest Threat to Your Private Data May Be You

I read the article "On Facebook, Biggest Threat to Your Private Data May Be You" by Jacquielynn Floyd.  This article argues that in our generation, there is no boundaries for anything you put on the Internet.  Floyd states you have to be your own defense in maintaining your privacy.  Floyd also explains how there are two kinds of people that use social media web sites.  The first is the generic.  They don't put much information out there and as Floyd explains "a one-size fits all personality template."  The second kind will tell you everything.  These are the kinds of people with absolutely no boundaries and will post what they are wearing, how they feel every second, ect. 

It's really sad to say, but its true when people say Facebook owns you.  You really can't go anywhere without someone mentioning something about Facebook, Twitter, or other social media web sites.  Now when you meet someone new, instead of asking to hang out the first immediate question is "Do you have a Facebook?
". I definitely agree with Floyd's argument completely that you are your own front line of defense in maintaining your privacy.  It's really not necessary to tell the whole world what your doing every second of the day, so why would you rely on a stranger to protect you when you set yourself up for disaster. 

The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech

                In the article “The Schools Are Destroying Freedom of Speech” by John W. Whitehead, Whitehead begins with explaining how schools used to be considered the hope of freedom and democracy and how that is no longer true.  He then gives some statistics on how many high school students know about the U.S. Constitution.  It’s eye-opening to see how few students know the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Fifth Amendment.  What’s worse yet, if the students don’t know, then the schools aren’t doing their job to teach them.  Even though the article is about freedom of speech and Whitehead begins with statistics about other things, I still think those statistics were important in making his point.

                Whitehead uses two examples as to how schools are not allowing students to use their First Amendment freely.  The first example is a student Nicholas Noel who referred to his school as a prison, so the school refused to award him with his diploma.  The second incident was also a student, Brittany McComb, who at graduation night gave a speech that the school did not approve of because she used Bible verses, references to “the Lord”, and mentioned “Christ”.  During her speech, they unplugged her microphone to censor her.  She made a lawsuit out of the incident but a federal appeals court sided with the school.

                Whitehead compares the school to Hitler and Saddam Hussein saying that the “government officials can pull the plug on microphones when they disagree with whatever any citizen has to say.”  To think of the government as being so controlling is actually kind of scary.  It is easy to see, though, how the government keeps changing the First Amendment to only benefit them. 

What's Up Doc?

I read the article What's Up Doc? A Bloody Outrage, That's What by Katherine Ellison.  This article explains how the violent games and the Internet are desensitizing children.  She begins the article by telling how she came home to her 6-year-old watching an Internet cartoon called Happy Tree Friends.  If anyone had seen this show, they would know how graphic it really is.  To someone who hasn't see it, the show sounds like a children's cartoon, and even has happy, cheery music to start out with.  It's not until you actually fully watch to see just how brutal it really is.  Ellison states how hard it is to keep kids away from shows like this when their peers are watching them too.  She also goes into the fact that advertisers are making so much money from how many people watching them repeatedly.  Ironically, Happy Tree Friends started out as a show against media violence.  It's really sad to see what the creators have done just to earn some money.  You know it's bad when the executive producer won't even let his children watch it.  I do believe the Internet has so much impact on kids, but when parents are too busy working it's hard to watch their every move to prevent them from seeing graphic cartoons.  If they won't take this show off the Internet, then I think the cartoons should at least be blocked for anyone under a certain age.  In the end, though, it is ultimately the parent's responsibility to keep track of what their children watch either on T.V. or on the Internet.