I wrote this commentary over Renata Green's The Deathly Matter of Bullying.
I also can relate to this article and agree entirely.
When I was younger, I too was chubby. My mother ran about 15 minutes late naturally... and was also fond of cutting my hair, herself, into a dutch-boy masterpiece. Needless to say, I was the envy of my third grade class room.
In high school, things got better for ME. However, I would notice other kids being bullied without any mercy to the point where the child being bullied was just so scared of being picked on that they'd be a jerk to anyone who tried to speak to them. It's heart breaking.
This sounds dramatic, but this is SERIOUSLY how some criminals (... murderers!) are created. And it's terrible.
I heard on the radio the other day that a gay kid was being bullied by SIX boys at school. Six boys could easily accidentally kill someone. So the mother gave him a stun gun. It sounds dramatic, but let's be real here. This is her child. I saw a lady try to stun someone's dog at the dog park for not playing nice. I could easily see a mother doing the same. Anyway, the mother ended up getting in trouble and the kid got expelled.
Are you kidding me?
There is NO sort of defense for these kids. Either let them fight back without fear of getting in trouble for trying to defend themselves or defend them yourself. I can't believe the amount of bullying that takes place in schools.
So, in conclusion, I agree 100%. I think that bullying should be taken a lot more seriously than it is and should result in at least a generous fine. (Hey, there's a good source of revenue too.)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
Fixed Solution
I think that it should be Texas law that all pet owners spay or neuter their animals. I think that breeding should only be legal if someone has been issued a license. I personally don't agree with breeding animals for a profit, but when it comes to homeless animals, I'd much rather people be breeding with purpose than letting their pets run around and end up giving birth to puppies on the patio of the Humane Society.
If it were a law that everyone must spay or neuter their pet, think about how much money would be saved that would usually be spent on keeping animals alive in shelters as well as the money saved from euthanization. More importantly, think about how many potential lives will be saved. Each animal is capable of giving birth to about five litters per year. That's 30 potential lives with 30 different families that need to be found. All of that could be prevented with a quick and relatively cheap procedure.
My favorite thing to hear from pet owners is, "Getting your cat fixed is so expensive!". I especially find it humorous when the same person is in between puffs of a cigarette. If you can afford to smoke a pack a day, you can afford to get your cat fixed.
Obviously, animals would benefit from this law because it helps to prevent them from homelessness but I believe this law would also benefit people of all sorts. It would benefit the animal lover, obviously because their hearts would break less often considering the number of homeless puppies and kittens would decrease. Then, it would also help the lazy animal owner by preventing the ailments faced when trying to find homes for all the unwanted babies as well as rid them of all the stress and worry caused by the paranoia of their pet becoming pregnant.
With that being said, there is no excuse for not spaying or neutering your animal. When someone takes on the responsibility of owning a pet, they're also taking on the responsibility of providing the best living condition for the animal as well as preventing any unwanted pregnancies. So, I believe that all of Texas' animals AND people would benefit from it being a law to spay or neuter your pet, rather they're from the shelter or not.
If it were a law that everyone must spay or neuter their pet, think about how much money would be saved that would usually be spent on keeping animals alive in shelters as well as the money saved from euthanization. More importantly, think about how many potential lives will be saved. Each animal is capable of giving birth to about five litters per year. That's 30 potential lives with 30 different families that need to be found. All of that could be prevented with a quick and relatively cheap procedure.
My favorite thing to hear from pet owners is, "Getting your cat fixed is so expensive!". I especially find it humorous when the same person is in between puffs of a cigarette. If you can afford to smoke a pack a day, you can afford to get your cat fixed.
Obviously, animals would benefit from this law because it helps to prevent them from homelessness but I believe this law would also benefit people of all sorts. It would benefit the animal lover, obviously because their hearts would break less often considering the number of homeless puppies and kittens would decrease. Then, it would also help the lazy animal owner by preventing the ailments faced when trying to find homes for all the unwanted babies as well as rid them of all the stress and worry caused by the paranoia of their pet becoming pregnant.
With that being said, there is no excuse for not spaying or neutering your animal. When someone takes on the responsibility of owning a pet, they're also taking on the responsibility of providing the best living condition for the animal as well as preventing any unwanted pregnancies. So, I believe that all of Texas' animals AND people would benefit from it being a law to spay or neuter your pet, rather they're from the shelter or not.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Class Commentary
I was very pleased to read my classmates article "The Care and Feeding of Puppies". I totally agree with the author on everything. Being the proud mother of a border collie, I have first hand experience with the "jubilant" reactions to my return and have spent a few hours coaxing during thunderstorms.
I genuinely can NOT believe that in this day in age we're still arguing over rather or not guidelines on the welfare of animals is worth a few bucks. First of all, I agree entirely with Ms. Green about the laxation and lack of importance emphasized by these new guidelines on the size and flooring regulations. I have volunteered at a humane society before and let me tell you, an animal will have to position themselves JUST right to spin around and they can forget a good stretch. Also, if a puppy were to have an accident, escaping the mess is literally impossible. So he/she will be forced to stand in it until they're cleaned. Plus, doesn't that seem like a mandatory subject to discuss?
Animals are not stupid (as Ms. Green also states!). Scientist have done studies suggesting that dogs can reach the intelligence level of a three year old child (I, personally, argue much older... my dog's intelligence seems to be beyond most 20 year olds). How many mothers would like to see their toddler sitting in their poop for hours? Hopefully not many. Then again, with hardly anyone even showing an interest in the welfare of furry companions, I'd be surprised.
I also think that breeding animals for profit is outrageous when there are several dogs at the humane society with their lives literally on the line. If there were standards to owning a pet, I think that the numbers of animals impounded would dramatically decrease. If someone actually had to put forth an effort to adopting a pet, this would automatically weed out the lazy scum who decide Lassie sheds too much and drop her off at the pound. Just an idea. I also have a few opinions on breeders, but I'm trying to keep this G rated.
I think that the author could have gone into a LITTLE more depth on the article, but the emotion is definitely there and she has my support 100%.
I genuinely can NOT believe that in this day in age we're still arguing over rather or not guidelines on the welfare of animals is worth a few bucks. First of all, I agree entirely with Ms. Green about the laxation and lack of importance emphasized by these new guidelines on the size and flooring regulations. I have volunteered at a humane society before and let me tell you, an animal will have to position themselves JUST right to spin around and they can forget a good stretch. Also, if a puppy were to have an accident, escaping the mess is literally impossible. So he/she will be forced to stand in it until they're cleaned. Plus, doesn't that seem like a mandatory subject to discuss?
Animals are not stupid (as Ms. Green also states!). Scientist have done studies suggesting that dogs can reach the intelligence level of a three year old child (I, personally, argue much older... my dog's intelligence seems to be beyond most 20 year olds). How many mothers would like to see their toddler sitting in their poop for hours? Hopefully not many. Then again, with hardly anyone even showing an interest in the welfare of furry companions, I'd be surprised.
I also think that breeding animals for profit is outrageous when there are several dogs at the humane society with their lives literally on the line. If there were standards to owning a pet, I think that the numbers of animals impounded would dramatically decrease. If someone actually had to put forth an effort to adopting a pet, this would automatically weed out the lazy scum who decide Lassie sheds too much and drop her off at the pound. Just an idea. I also have a few opinions on breeders, but I'm trying to keep this G rated.
I think that the author could have gone into a LITTLE more depth on the article, but the emotion is definitely there and she has my support 100%.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Unnatural Consumption
I'm sure that several if not all of you have heard of the notorious "pink slime". If not, let me inform you. Pink slime is, literally, all the bits and pieces that no one wants, mainly consisting of connective tissues and fat trimmings. I think this "pink slime", or chemically modified...meat, should be illegalized in Texas.
"Pink slime", or the trimmings, are originally NOT edible. The "slime" must undergo a unique process before it is considered consumable. First, the slime is separated from the actual meat using heat and spinning it at high speeds. The slime then undergoes an extremely delicate process that uses ammonia as well as many other toxic chemicals to turn the "meat" into a tallow, kill the E.coli and salmonella, and essentially make it "edible". This is an extremely precise precedure. Too much ammonia, you get sick. Not enough ammonia, you get sick. I'm not entirely sure how they test it which makes me even more uncomfortable.
Some of you may be thinking, "well who's in charge of such repulsive procedures?", well, let me tell you. The main "pink slime" producer is Beef Products Inc. An honest little company that tries to redeem themselves by saying some rubbish about the slime being "90% lean". My question is, 90% lean... what? Beef? No. Meat? Not quite. Spam? Doesn't even get that benefit. This is GOO we're talking about. Literally. Unrecognizable slime. The ends and edges of something that's already been pumped full of hormones and chemicals.
It's funny, I can recall another time when this was a problem. In the early 1900's Upton Sinclair wrote a book called "The Jungle"(which again, I'm sure many of you have heard of but for those that haven't...) about an immigrants work in the meat packing industry and how outrageously disgusting it was. The book primarily focused on the chemicals being put into the meat and really forced the reader to realize how grotesque the meat packing process WAS. Well, When I read the book I found myself thinking, "man, I sure am happy that we evolved past that. Good thing we have the FDA!"... oh wait. We didn't evolve past it, all we did was give the ol' chemical process an update! Basically what's happening to our meat behind closed doors is the EXACT same thing that Sinclair wrote about. The only difference is that the meat packing industry gave the chemical process a hip new makeover with modern technology.
What's even crazier is that this pink slime is being found in packages labeled "100% Ground Beef", which I'm trying to figure out how in the hell that's legal. False advertisement? Chemically altered beef? How is it not clearly labeled on the package? That's just the beginning. Pink slime made it's claim to fame by showing up primarily in children's lunches at school. It may by 90% lean but there is literally no nutritional value. No protein for their growing muscles, no iron, no necessary vitamins or minerals, no nothing. How is this not already illegal?
What we call "organic" or "all natural" is simply... food. Somehow we've gotten to the point where we have to search and pay extra for something that happens on this planet naturally. It's absurd. If the FDA (who is probably in cahoots with someone at Beef Products Inc. ... we were all thinking it) insists on keeping this junk legal, I think it should be absolutely mandatory that it's CLEARLY labeled on packaged meats. I also think that kids and their parents have the right to know what they're ingesting. I just have a feeling that if this "pink slime" were more widely recognized by kids and their parents, it wouldn't be legal for long.
Lastly, please note that this process has been illegalized in several countries including the United Kingdom. I really do think it's time for America to follow their lead and just set down the extra cash they're piling up from this sanitized crap.
"Pink slime", or the trimmings, are originally NOT edible. The "slime" must undergo a unique process before it is considered consumable. First, the slime is separated from the actual meat using heat and spinning it at high speeds. The slime then undergoes an extremely delicate process that uses ammonia as well as many other toxic chemicals to turn the "meat" into a tallow, kill the E.coli and salmonella, and essentially make it "edible". This is an extremely precise precedure. Too much ammonia, you get sick. Not enough ammonia, you get sick. I'm not entirely sure how they test it which makes me even more uncomfortable.
Some of you may be thinking, "well who's in charge of such repulsive procedures?", well, let me tell you. The main "pink slime" producer is Beef Products Inc. An honest little company that tries to redeem themselves by saying some rubbish about the slime being "90% lean". My question is, 90% lean... what? Beef? No. Meat? Not quite. Spam? Doesn't even get that benefit. This is GOO we're talking about. Literally. Unrecognizable slime. The ends and edges of something that's already been pumped full of hormones and chemicals.
It's funny, I can recall another time when this was a problem. In the early 1900's Upton Sinclair wrote a book called "The Jungle"(which again, I'm sure many of you have heard of but for those that haven't...) about an immigrants work in the meat packing industry and how outrageously disgusting it was. The book primarily focused on the chemicals being put into the meat and really forced the reader to realize how grotesque the meat packing process WAS. Well, When I read the book I found myself thinking, "man, I sure am happy that we evolved past that. Good thing we have the FDA!"... oh wait. We didn't evolve past it, all we did was give the ol' chemical process an update! Basically what's happening to our meat behind closed doors is the EXACT same thing that Sinclair wrote about. The only difference is that the meat packing industry gave the chemical process a hip new makeover with modern technology.
What's even crazier is that this pink slime is being found in packages labeled "100% Ground Beef", which I'm trying to figure out how in the hell that's legal. False advertisement? Chemically altered beef? How is it not clearly labeled on the package? That's just the beginning. Pink slime made it's claim to fame by showing up primarily in children's lunches at school. It may by 90% lean but there is literally no nutritional value. No protein for their growing muscles, no iron, no necessary vitamins or minerals, no nothing. How is this not already illegal?
What we call "organic" or "all natural" is simply... food. Somehow we've gotten to the point where we have to search and pay extra for something that happens on this planet naturally. It's absurd. If the FDA (who is probably in cahoots with someone at Beef Products Inc. ... we were all thinking it) insists on keeping this junk legal, I think it should be absolutely mandatory that it's CLEARLY labeled on packaged meats. I also think that kids and their parents have the right to know what they're ingesting. I just have a feeling that if this "pink slime" were more widely recognized by kids and their parents, it wouldn't be legal for long.
Lastly, please note that this process has been illegalized in several countries including the United Kingdom. I really do think it's time for America to follow their lead and just set down the extra cash they're piling up from this sanitized crap.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Wars On Oil Rage On
Alright, so. The blog that I found was written on March 17, 2012 on The TexasFred Blog. The TexasFred is written by an extremely conservative man who refers to himself, patriotically, as TexasFred. I feel like TexasFred is really trying to reach any audience that will listen. Though I disagree with a lot of his opinions, I do find him credible. He proves himself to have done thorough research as well as cites a lot of his findings.
The title, "Obama to Visit Oklahoma to Talk About Oil Drilling", really caught my attention and I'm really glad that it did.
TexasFred rounds off his blog with "Oil Drops as International Reserves Are Tapped"... TexasFred makes a short rant about OPEC and how america has enough oil for generations to come. Well, this also might be true. But going back to my last argument, it literally is destroying the earth. I understand that it's absolutely essential to have oil. What I don't understand is how people can ignore that FACT that we WILL run out one day. Oil is NOT replenishing itself. We can drill as deep as we can, from Saudi Arabia, America, the Moon, whatever, for as long as we possibly can... but it WILL run out eventually. Maybe not for us... maybe not even for our kids we continue to cut the world in half. But what's going to happen to our grandchildren? How are they going to find sources of energy? We continuously prolong finding a permanent solution to a problem because it's so much easier to say, "Oh, the next generation can worry about it".
TexFred, or whatever the hell he calls himself, can criticize Obama all he wants for trying to gain support for alternative energy, but all he's doing is making himself look selfish and narrow viewed.
Post Script:
I've never met TexasFred personally. I have absolutely nothing against him. He's probably a great guy. I'm sure we'd get along beautifully... you know, so long as we didn't discuss environmental issues.
The title, "Obama to Visit Oklahoma to Talk About Oil Drilling", really caught my attention and I'm really glad that it did.
Basically, TexasFred is criticizing Obama for going state to state trying to gain support for "greener" and more abundant sources of energy. TexasFred brings up several arguments that aren't necessarily against alternative energy but just ranting about the economy for oil in general. He repeatedly calls Obama by his full name, sure to distress at least two or three old ladies, as well as makes Obama seem extremely self righteous. He also bashes himself over and over saying things like, "what do I know, I'm just a neanderthal", clearly trying to be "ironic" or "silly"(but I personally feel like maybe TexasFred has a few more insecurities that he'd like to discuss along with those he has for the economy...).
TexasFred argues that there are not only NEW ways to drill for oil, (as if the world hasn't taken enough of a beating with emissions as well as current ways of drilling that already cause tectonic plates to shift) but points out that "We Don't Need Foreign Oil"! We get to destroy our lush greenery rather than desecrate a barren desert (which, I'm not saying is a good thing either).
TexasFred argues that there are not only NEW ways to drill for oil, (as if the world hasn't taken enough of a beating with emissions as well as current ways of drilling that already cause tectonic plates to shift) but points out that "We Don't Need Foreign Oil"! We get to destroy our lush greenery rather than desecrate a barren desert (which, I'm not saying is a good thing either).
TexasFred also points out that BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars are going to the enemy for oil. Well Fred, this is true. We ARE in Libya for oil. But if memory suits me correctly wasn't it the Bush Administration that STARTED the whole "start-a-war-for-oil" thing? Hm. Also, I really don't agree with how much money we are giving to other economies. Especially when we have the resources ourselves. HOWEVER, if we could find an easier and more renewable resource that doesn't involve destroying the planet, I'd much rather money be invested in THAT rather than worrying about what's to come... something Obama is trying to advocate by doing things such as promoting tax incentives designed to encourage the production of electrically run cars. That doesn't really make Barrack Hussein "I'm a Terrorist" Obama sound too terribly evil to me.
Good Ol' TexFred doesn't stop there. He then explains the newly discovered method of oil pumping. Apparently, the "new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers". This genuinely sounds great, doesn't it? And I get it. But it really doesn't make the "big picture"(words of Obama himself that TexFred defensively criticizes and takes offensively as if Obama is talking down to us). Anyway... FRED, in the "big picture", having more or less money really won't matter in the long run if we're suffering from polluted air (like in China due to emissions) or having to spend whatever money we made off of oil on repairing damages from natural disasters that drilling for oil has proven to cause.
TexasFred rounds off his blog with "Oil Drops as International Reserves Are Tapped"... TexasFred makes a short rant about OPEC and how america has enough oil for generations to come. Well, this also might be true. But going back to my last argument, it literally is destroying the earth. I understand that it's absolutely essential to have oil. What I don't understand is how people can ignore that FACT that we WILL run out one day. Oil is NOT replenishing itself. We can drill as deep as we can, from Saudi Arabia, America, the Moon, whatever, for as long as we possibly can... but it WILL run out eventually. Maybe not for us... maybe not even for our kids we continue to cut the world in half. But what's going to happen to our grandchildren? How are they going to find sources of energy? We continuously prolong finding a permanent solution to a problem because it's so much easier to say, "Oh, the next generation can worry about it".
TexFred, or whatever the hell he calls himself, can criticize Obama all he wants for trying to gain support for alternative energy, but all he's doing is making himself look selfish and narrow viewed.
Post Script:
I've never met TexasFred personally. I have absolutely nothing against him. He's probably a great guy. I'm sure we'd get along beautifully... you know, so long as we didn't discuss environmental issues.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Commentary On Standardized Testing
On Tuesday February 18, 2012 The Statesman posted an editorial by Laura Subrin Yeager arguing against a recent proposal of more standardized testing made by a paid Texas representative. Yeager argued that the tests did nothing but increase the drop out rate along with denying hard working students admission to college while raising the salaries of the test makers and graders. Yeager also suggests that because of the test makers wages rising with each standardized test, perhaps this is why the Austin Chamber and the Texas Association of Business make the tests out to be absolutely necessary for an improved workforce.
Yeager's commentary was posted along with several replies disagreeing with standardized testing.
I would say it's safe to assume that Laura is a credible source considering her article is coherent and well written along with it being about her opinion. This article is really intended for any audience but I'm sure it's most easily relatable to college students and young adults.
I definitely agree with Laura. There are several other states (and from a larger scale countries!) that surpass Texas educationally. Standardized testing should most definitely be decreased. Being a former high school student, I know when I say that those tests are ridiculously difficult and most of time don't even contain information that any human being will ever need to know. The tests are set up to trick and confuse the students.
This obviously puts a huge stress on teachers because their students outcome on these ridiculous tests is reflection of "how they're doing their job". There could be an amazingly talented teacher who can educate a biology student about all sorts of plants and animals but literally is not allowed to teach that material because they're so stressed about imprinting meaningless facts into the students minds.
Even if a student DOES remember everything they're taught for the testing, it's just memorizing. The student doesn't learn any life skills or information that will potentially help their profession of choice. I guess I'm ranting a little, it's just extremely disappointing to have spent four years of my life in a day care where a lot of what I learned is just memorization with no background knowledge of the subject. All of the information is HOW it's done not WHY it's done.
I also strongly agree with Laura that the Texas Association of Business and Austin Chamber are completely aware of all of this but could quite possible care less because some of the money from making and grading the test is somehow finding a way into their pocket.
So, in conclusion, I agree with this argument about decreasing standardized testing and promoting a much freer and creative teaching environment.
Yeager's commentary was posted along with several replies disagreeing with standardized testing.
I would say it's safe to assume that Laura is a credible source considering her article is coherent and well written along with it being about her opinion. This article is really intended for any audience but I'm sure it's most easily relatable to college students and young adults.
I definitely agree with Laura. There are several other states (and from a larger scale countries!) that surpass Texas educationally. Standardized testing should most definitely be decreased. Being a former high school student, I know when I say that those tests are ridiculously difficult and most of time don't even contain information that any human being will ever need to know. The tests are set up to trick and confuse the students.
This obviously puts a huge stress on teachers because their students outcome on these ridiculous tests is reflection of "how they're doing their job". There could be an amazingly talented teacher who can educate a biology student about all sorts of plants and animals but literally is not allowed to teach that material because they're so stressed about imprinting meaningless facts into the students minds.
Even if a student DOES remember everything they're taught for the testing, it's just memorizing. The student doesn't learn any life skills or information that will potentially help their profession of choice. I guess I'm ranting a little, it's just extremely disappointing to have spent four years of my life in a day care where a lot of what I learned is just memorization with no background knowledge of the subject. All of the information is HOW it's done not WHY it's done.
I also strongly agree with Laura that the Texas Association of Business and Austin Chamber are completely aware of all of this but could quite possible care less because some of the money from making and grading the test is somehow finding a way into their pocket.
So, in conclusion, I agree with this argument about decreasing standardized testing and promoting a much freer and creative teaching environment.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Occupy Proves Relentless
On February 6th 2012 the Statesmen posted a blog about a recent set back in the Occupy Austin movement.
On Monday February 3rd, Peace Officers and policemen went to City Hall to forcefully remove the pedestrians protesting with the Occupy movement. The Occupiers were also informed of City Hall's new rules and curfew: No one is from this point forward allowed to sleep at City Hall and the grounds close at 10pm and open again at 6am. Anyone found sleeping on the property during those hours will be asked to leave and if do not comply will be evicted.
During the recent eviction no one was harmed, however apparently one of the Occupiers threw a can at a Peace Officer. Clearly this caused the officer much pain and discomfort as the man who allegedly threw the can was then arrested. The Can-Thrower's Occupy buddies denied the can-throwing ever happened. Seeing as we are a country that abides by "innocent until proven guilty"and Can-Thrower "couldn't be reached for comment", the possibly innocent Occupier was wheeled into custody.
After the last of the Occupiers were escorted, Peace Officers and police found 30,000 dollars worth of damage done to City Hall by the movement participants, including painting, drawing, and sewage damage where people flushed paper towels and even attempted clothing.
However, although this is a minor setback, Occupy participants say that this is almost "reinvigorated"the movement and given them an extra boost to persevere. After the participants were evicted from City Hall, they held a march to protest homelessness which drew extra attention to the movement and helped to enlighten several onlookers.
I suggest reading this article because it's informative of the Occupy Austin movement as well as slightly humorous.
On Monday February 3rd, Peace Officers and policemen went to City Hall to forcefully remove the pedestrians protesting with the Occupy movement. The Occupiers were also informed of City Hall's new rules and curfew: No one is from this point forward allowed to sleep at City Hall and the grounds close at 10pm and open again at 6am. Anyone found sleeping on the property during those hours will be asked to leave and if do not comply will be evicted.
During the recent eviction no one was harmed, however apparently one of the Occupiers threw a can at a Peace Officer. Clearly this caused the officer much pain and discomfort as the man who allegedly threw the can was then arrested. The Can-Thrower's Occupy buddies denied the can-throwing ever happened. Seeing as we are a country that abides by "innocent until proven guilty"and Can-Thrower "couldn't be reached for comment", the possibly innocent Occupier was wheeled into custody.
After the last of the Occupiers were escorted, Peace Officers and police found 30,000 dollars worth of damage done to City Hall by the movement participants, including painting, drawing, and sewage damage where people flushed paper towels and even attempted clothing.
However, although this is a minor setback, Occupy participants say that this is almost "reinvigorated"the movement and given them an extra boost to persevere. After the participants were evicted from City Hall, they held a march to protest homelessness which drew extra attention to the movement and helped to enlighten several onlookers.
I suggest reading this article because it's informative of the Occupy Austin movement as well as slightly humorous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)