The Death Penalty

The death penalty has been a part of the American justice system for as long as it has been around. Even before America was what it is today, before it had a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, before it was its own country; the death penalty was a punishment in some way, shape, or form. The death penalty has been strongly debated for many years not only in America but throughout the world. The death penalty has been declining in America, as it should until it is ultimately gone from the American justice system. The death penalty is costing America and it is an easy way out for convicted criminals.

In California, it is costing the state roughly one hundred and thirty seven million each year for death row inmates. (deathpenaltyinfo.org) a recent study estimates that Maryland taxpayers are forking out roughly three million dollars per death penalty. (deathpenaltyinfo.org) and since 1983, New Jersey has been throwing away two hundred and fifty three million dollars in tax dollars because of the death penalty. (deathpenaltyinfo.org) why would anyone in their right mind throw away all these valuable tax dollars on the death of a criminal? Yes, criminals are dangerous; and yes they should not be in society; but why spend that much just to exterminate them? Wouldn't it be more productive to send those resourcable tax dollars elsewhere to say, education, healthcare, food stamps, just to name a few sources that lack tax dollars so frequently? If we ceased to spend this money we could potentially begin to improve our economy. With a good economy come more jobs. With more jobs comes a lower unemployment rate. With a lower unemployment rate comes a drop in one of the leading causes of crimes in the United States. See where this is going? It is a cycle, and voters have the opportunity to stop it. The question remains, where would these criminals go without the death penalty? The new incentive is life in prison, which is much harder than receiving the death penalty.

The death penalty is an easy punishment for criminals. Granted losing your life is a scary idea, but once you're dead; you're dead! There are no more consequences or punishments. It's a one shot deal with the death penalty. Life in prison is a much better choice than the death penalty. Life in prison doesn't mean what it used to mean. It used to be a few decades in prison and the potential of getting out on good behavior. (NPR) Now its means no chance of ever getting out and anybody who's been to prison knows; prison's a horrible place. According to one man's story, the worst part of life in prison is the separation from your family. "Worst of all, we are away from our families and friends for years at a time, sometimes decades. We don't get to be with them for special occasions like birthdays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. We're left in limbo, seemingly forever." (Jay B. Van) Not to mention terrible food, terrible living conditions, and the realization you will never get out. It's no day at grandma's house. The death penalty just ends the criminal's life and gives them no real punishment. Life in prison is a much better punishment for criminals.

Homeschooling: Broadening Horizons or Narrowing Minds?

Homeschooling is a widely argued topic amongst everyone from families, politicians, teachers, professors, and students. The concept of homeschooling seems like an alienate idea to those who have never been exposed to it fully. In regards to homeschooling, depite what advocates try to argue, students are severly lacking in several parts of a traditional education such as learning from peers and are brought up in a hypocritic situation.

Homeschooled children are deprived of the education they recieve from their peers in a traditional education setting. Students learn and wide variety of their knowledge from their peers. Primarily, this education is not in regards to academic achievements but social knowledge, also known as "street smarts." Though adovocates for homeschooling may argue that homeschooled children are frequently participating in sports, youth groups, etc. These situations only present the homeschooled child with specific socialization, "per week the average homeschooled child participates in at least five outside activites" (mother.com). Most outside activities have one very specific thing in common, adult supervision. Whether it be a youth group leader, a den mother, and troop leader, or a coach; all have some kind of adult involved in the group. Children act differently around adults, and will not fully socialize to the extent they want in front of an adult. Therefore, the homeschooled child is only getting the easy, carefree version of his or her peers.

Homeschooled children are also less exposed to differing ideas. The parents of these children feel customization will broaden the child's learning. But really they will be narrowing the child's mind to the bias and ideas the parent chooses to expose them too. In a traditional education setting, students are around their peers in less formal places like lunch and recess. There they are exposed to the ideas and diversities of their fellow peers. Keeping a child away from these scenarios will ultimately "sheild them from the vibrancy of a pluralistic democracy" (Bielick). If more students are homeschooled, the future leaders of our societies will ultimately be unaware of the people around them due to be educationally secluded from their fellow peers.

Homeschool is also an extremely hypocritic situation. Take for example, a high school English teacher. If he was to teach without proper credentials, he would cause both a legal and moral uproar. Yet a parent is allowed to teach their child without any higher education? The law is simple, "if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action" (time.com). So why are the teachers of the traditionally educated so harshly critized about cridentials yet homeschooling advocates are not?

The ideas of homeschooling seem good but ultimately may cause more harm to a student than good. The lack of peer-to-peer learning and the hypocracy of the entire situation are just some reasons that homeschooling is harmful.

Drug Testing For Welfare

Many know the stereotypes of recipients of welfare. Those of the "welfare queens" that live off welfare and ultimately end up spending the money on their next fix drug fixes. So the idea of drug testing applicants before supplying them with welfare money seems like a pretty good idea, right? But will this honestly help? Will this reduce the number of recipients using welfare to supply their drug addictions? When considering drug testing applicants one must take into account the costs of this proposal, the truth behind recipients of welfare, and the morals of these recipients.

The idea of drug testing applicants of welfare could potentially lower the rate of drug addicts using welfare to supply their addictions. But on the flip side, it could also cause money issues when it came to the cost of administering the drug test in the first place. In 2009, about four million Americans were on welfare. One drug test costs about 42 dollars. Times that 42 dollars by four million Americans and suddenly you're at a bill of over 168 million dollars! In one year about 191 million dollars was spent of welfare. They budget for welfare would almost double just by adding a seemingly easy application requirement. America is in a recession. We surely don't need to add an extra 168 million dollars on top of the billions of debt money we owe! While considering the cost, also think about the people who receive welfare.

Yes there are stereotypes about poor people. The most prominent one is the drug addict. But how many people receiving welfare checks really are drug addicts looking for their next hit? Truth is, not many. According to studies, when a drug test was administered to applicants of welfare in Florida, almost 98% of applicants passed. So who really receives welfare? Hard working, financially challenged, family bearing Americans. People with families, trying to scrape by, provide for the family, keep a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and often all while being unemployed. When taking this into account, one must also consider the morals of these recipients.

The recipients of welfare are not who you think they are. In fact, they are just like you. Sometimes they are even more emotionally strong and faith bond than most middle and upper class Americans. They hold on to every last thing they can. They do not quit even when things get tough. They rely on the good will of others and their pure faith to keep them in good health, day by day. Coming from a lower middle class family and having experienced just how tough it is to get by with one parent unemployed, I can assure you the recipients of welfare are good, deserving people. When my family was in the worst state, when my mother was unemployed and my father worked two jobs just to keep us afloat, things like heating assistance and the good will of others was the things that made life easier. The idea of either of my parents having to be drug tested to receive help is absolutely mortifying to me. Think about how degrading it is to admit you cannot support a family, then you must face reality that your fellow Americans feel you are a type of social scum and don't trust how you'll spend their money? That feeling must truly feel utterly embarrassing and downright terrible.

Off Shore Drilling

Oil is essential to American life. It gives us control of our lives and helps us function as normal, productive parts of society. But, oil can pose many risks to the United States. Almost everyone can recall the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico because of the recent BP oil spill. So how beneficial would it be to expand off shore drilling? Some executives and congressional supporters believe expanding off shore drilling would be a benefit to the United States. Factors to evaluate when considering the idea of expanding off shore drilling are the many possibilities of accessible oil, the revenue it could create, and the problems it will create for options of green energy.

Off shore drilling could be expanded to the many suspected possibilities of accessible oil. In an article in the New York Times, Ken Salazar who is an interior secretary for a proposed plan to expand off shore drilling, stated that "his proposed offshore lease strategy made available more than 75 percent of undiscovered and technically recoverable oil and gas resources" (New York Times). If there is truly this much undiscovered resources, supporters believe it should be harnessed to the advantage of the United States. The idea of resources coming from the United States is encouraging to taking steps of reducing our dependency on foreign countries for oil.

If the resources are available, so is the possible revenue generated by it. Oil is essential, therefore it will always be generating revenue. The United States sends millions of dollars to foreign countries for oil. If off shore drilling was expanded the United States could reduce the amount we send to foreign governments by $15 million and create 190,000 jobs by 2013. (EnergyTomorrow.org). If this is true, the economy would rise dramatically and become more stable, something many people in the United States want to occur.

If off shore drilling was to expand, the money being invested in green energy could be taken away and focused on oil. Energy is expensive, regardless of where it’s coming from. The United States has always been a leading country that changes the world with its innovations. If we cease to invest in green energy and stopping the use of oil, we will be totally contradicting the image we have sent out for decades to the rest of the world. If we want to stop green house gases from being admitted, then green energy is the way to go. The effects of global warming will not be stopped if we continue to use oil as a source of energy. Green energy is just as effective as using oil, and expanding oil will only hurt the efforts the United States has made in green energy. So is it truly worth it to waste our efforts on something that will reproduce negative effects in the long run?

Our Economic Savior: Dropouts

From a young age students are filled with the ideas that the only road to success is by going to college. Though it is true that having a college degree can land you in a very high earning position working for some big wig corporation, many of the college dropouts are the people who will lift our economy out of recession. Dropouts are the ones to create the small businesses that account for the new jobs America so desperately needs. According to an article recently published in the New York Times by Michael Ellsberg, "people who create jobs aren’t traditional professionals, but start-up entrepreneurs."
An entrepreneur is defined in Merriam-Webster dictionary as, "one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise." Traditional education teaches the exact opposite skills that are needed to be a successful entrepreneur. Many colleges and universities that are often regarded as some of the most top notch schools in the nation offer classes that teach the negatives of sales (which is a highly needed skill as an entrepreneur.) Other skills, including networking and branding yourself are not part of curriculums in many schools. "I knew I had to keep networking, shaking hands and sharing my story at trade shows," says ore-based chip designer Jeri Ellsworth. Entrepreneurs must learn these types of skills quickly to be successful, and many do.
An entrepreneur is a go getter; they spit directly in fear's face and laugh at the very sight of failure. College dropouts make such great entrepreneurs because they do not stop after failure and go back to what they know because all they know currently is failure! A college dropout is deemed a failure once they dropout in the first place. These people are often very stubborn, strong minded, and independent; and when some doubts them they will become determined to prove them wrong.
They also have nothing to go back to if they fail. Someone who has a degree who tries becoming an entrepreneur, if they fail, they assume they have something to fall back on, another career field to return too. College dropouts have nothing. They pour their hearts and souls into their business until they have nothing left to give of them. Some of the most successful people in American history were college dropouts. Mark Zuckerburg, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and Bill Gates were all college dropouts. All of these people are great examples of what college dropouts do to help our economy. Never doubt a college dropout; they could one day be your boss!

You're Body: A Clean Slate or a Living Canvas?

About an hour ago I was at a tattoo parlor snapping pictures of my best friend getting her eyebrow pierced. I asked how old they tattoo and the tattoo artist said "18, no exceptions." This got me thinking, why is there an age restriction on tattoos? It’s not a drug or anything harmful. So why does it matter how old you are when you get a tattoo? Some states like Connecticut allow 16 year olds with parental consent to get a tattoo. I then continued on in thinking why is it such a debated subject? I understand some people feel tattoos are unnecessary and you are "vandalizing your body." While others feel your body is your canvas for the artwork you desire.

The facts are equal in power for both sides of this argument. The oppositions of tattooing are you may regret it later, sanitary hazards, and social perceptions. Though all of these points are valid, they are all avoidable. If you regret a tattoo later, get a new one to cover it. Getting a cover-up tattoo is as simple as getting the original. Poor sanitization has often been associated with tattoo parlors, and though for some this is a true problem, with proper research this is easily avoidable. The tattoo parlor my friend just got her piercing done was one of the most impeccably clean places I have ever been in. It was probably cleaner than a hospital operating room.

Social perception is a valid factor to take into consideration. If you feel you will be judged for your tattoo, you could opt for a different place so you could hide it or just not get it at all. Frankly, tattoos are not for everybody. Some people worry too much about how others think and those people are sometimes not cut out for the social judgment that is linked with tattoos. The fact of the matter is that no one can decide how you feel about tattoos for you. It is your own choice whether you embrace them or deny them.

Disney: Corrupting Our Princesses

From a young age, almost every child who's got access to mass media has been exposed to at least one Disney princess. Along with these princesses comes the ever famous, ever repeated plot line; a beautiful defenseless princess, a dangerous situation, a handsome prince who will save her, marriage, and then they live happily ever after. When you ask one of these little girls what they want to be when they grow up, it seems harmless for them to counter with the classic, "a princess." This seems fine and dandy to many parents but honestly, what are the Disney princesses doing to little girls?

Take a look at any Disney princess and one thing is certain, they are all unobtainably beautiful. Cinderella, with her big blue eyes and primped blonde hair (a common stereotype of the 'perfect' American woman.) Jasmine, sporting inhumanly long hair that is never messy, not to mention her ultra skanky outfits that in reality would never be worn by a woman of her ethnicity. Or Ariel, who has a very unrealistic hair color, wears only a shell bra, and has a perfect figure. All these princesses are the image of perfection to little girls. When little girls are brainwashed with images of skinny, perfect princesses, they begin at a very young age to compare how they look to these ideas of perfection.

Not only do princesses teach little girls they need to look perfect, but the actions of these princesses teach little girls unlikely goals and unrealistic morals. The obvious thing is the goal of getting married, that is the only goal in a princess' mind.

Alongside this, the prince must pursue them. They are never to go looking for their prince. This idea of helplessness teachs little girls they cannot be strong, individuals with career-oriented goals. Also some of the most minute teachings of the Disney princesses are the worst. Belle and Ariel are probably the worst princesses for little girls to aspire to be. First off, Belle definitely has undiagnosed Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome is a disease where you feel no matter what somebody does to you, they will change for the better. Belle believes she can be with a man who abuses her father and locks her away in a castle forever. She freely opens herself up to a stranger who has extreme anger and social issues. Take a look at Ariel and you find she is willing to give up her voice and her entire life to be with a man. Not to mention she is definitely an undiagnosed hoarder. So  by the time they are in school, they have been brainwashed of the ideas of feminity, codependency, and perfection. To be frank, Disney is making little girls into "feminidiots."

All these princesses are teaching little girls they have to live up to the ideals of what Disney feels is a 'perfect' princess. Many people may ask how to avoid these teachings? The truth is you cannot avoid it. Disney is everywhere. Even if you never show them one single Disney movie, by the end of preschool they will most likely know every princess my name. So the best people can do now is try to instill the idea that everyone is beautiful, you already are a princess, and never let anyone tell you otherwise.