Pro-Choice/ Pro-Life Movement- Barney Williams

A recent and common movement to the knowledge of most people is the Pro-Life/ Pro-Choice movement pertaining to abortion. I am going to encompass embryonic stem cell research into this movement as well due to the choice to research and the pro life side to it in that the research requires the destruction of a human embryo. I rode past an abortion clinic the other day and actually saw protesters out in front advocating the Pro-Life side of the movement. However in many instances the abortion could be the best option because it could ruin the lives of the parents and at the same time the child would presumably not have the ideal childhood environment to foster healthy growth into a mature and upstanding adult. A common misconception about abortion however is that many people do not understand the circumstances of the parents having the child. While it may or may not be killing a human life, depending on personal opinion, the lives of the parents may not be fitting for a child. So each situation varies and not all abortion situations are the same. That being part of the reasoning for Pro-Choice the embryonic stem cell research comes into this argument in that it deals with the destruction of a human embryo as well. This destruction however is for research rather than to simply avoid having a child. The research could result in massive medical advancement in that many diseases such as cancer could be fought on a cellular level. A common misconception is that Embryonic Stem Cell research is the only way to research this possible medical advancement while in fact there are alternatives. An example is through the induction of adult stem cells into thinking that they are embryonic stem cells. So abortion and embryonic stem cell research, while widely known, have foreseeable possible alternatives that would appease both sides of the argument.

Title IX in the media

The video I have chosen celebrates the 40^th anniversary of Title IX. The video clip interviews two former athletes about Title IX and how they think it has progresses over the years. There is a part where the question is asked how many people even know about the law and if people should. Julie Foudy says that when she teaches soccer camps around the world young girls have no clue what she is talking about when she asks them if the know what Title IX is. She says that five percent of girls raise their hand and that it is a shame because they benefit so much from the law everyday yet they are ungrateful and ignorant of what has made the change for their sake. They disagree with the idea that the stigma about Title IX has died down in the present. They say how in the 70s and 80s everyone was talking about it and it was a common household term whereas now kids don’t even know what it is or give credit where credit is due. The female athletes themselves took the blame for this outcome and said that it’s the job of all females to teach their children and their friends/family all about the law. They say everyone needs to have this positive conversation in order to keep respect for the law because it is not the kids fault because they do not learn about it in school until college where it is presented as a negative light because of its harms on men’s athletics. At the end of the video they tell the audience more ways to find out more on educating the new generation of athletes about this law and all of its benefits so that there never comes a time where the law is solely seen in a negative way. I think the public responds positive to this idea however this news clip wasn’t even broadcasted on television it was on ESPN.com so that shows how much of a priority Title IX media promotion is today.

Huffington Post Unreliability - Annemarie Holbrook

In a recent article in “Student Life,” the Newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis, brings up the issue of media sensationalism ruining the truth. A report on an incident of a Sigma Alpha Epsilon racial slur was taken out of proportion due to several different reporting on the incident. Many absurd rumors flooded the internet and everyone had a different side of the story. The article states “sensationalist journalism and poor fact checking have robbed the students involved and the Wash. U. community as a whole of the opportunity to tell the truth.” The internet has increased the speed at which information is relayed and as the hours went on the story continued to blow up. Each news story competes with one another by sensationalizing their stories. The story grew into a wild report with so many different sources. The Huffington Post got hold of the SAE story and decided to make their own report. The Post used Facebook postings reprinted from blogs as their main sources. The unreliable source gave way to false information. Information should not be written based off of rumors and secondhand information. As a result false stories reporting the racial slur incident continue to circulate the media.

            This is an example of sensationalism in the news. The article was written on March 4, 2013. Feeding into sensationalism in our society can drive media to take whatever means possible to “one up” another media source. The great competition among them also creates a mad dash to report, creating a lot of holes in their research. Society needs to be aware that all the information they are receiving is not necessarily reliable, even coming from a well-known source such as the Huffington Post. The article tries to warn people about this giving the specific example of the reporting of the SAE racial slur. Don’t believe everything you read.

NY TImes examines NCAA rules - Sarah Anne Semke

I found an article in the New York Times that examined the rules in the NCAA on college athletes and paying them, specifically recent changes in how scholarships are granted. In 2012, Mark Emmert, the president of the NCAA looked at some of the NCAA rules and found that the academic standards could be raised a little higher and that the scholarship process could be changed somewhat. Originally, NCAA scholarships were given out on a one year basis, each player had an assessment with their coach at the end of their season and the coaching staff decided if their scholarship should be renewed for the following academic year. With Emmert’s changes, schools can give athletes a guaranteed four year scholarship, this was put in place to increase graduation rates as a scholarship for the entire college career was already paid for.

Another aspect of these changes was the ability of division one schools to give their players a $2000 stipend each year. Some people were outraged by these changes saying that we were making students subcontractors and tuition money by regular students was being given to the wrong group at colleges and universities. However, Emmert fought off those accusations with this: “If we move toward a pay-for-play model — if we were to convert our student athletes to employees of the university — that would be the death of college athletics, Then they are subcontractors. Why would you even want them to be students? Why would you care about their graduation rates? Why would you care about their behavior?” No, he insisted, the extra $2,000 was an effort to increase the value of the scholarships, which some studies estimate falls on average about $3,500 short of the full cost of attending college annually.” However over 100 universities sent in “over ride requests” for this stipend on the grounds that they could not afford it. With high numbers like this the NCAA decided to suspend this stipend amendment. I thought this was an interesting article to look at because it showed how the NCAA has in fact tried to pay athletes and schools simply cannot afford it. Schools not being able to afford paying their athletes is an aspect I believe is somewhat overlooked in the argument of paying athletes. 

Publics view on Ag

The Publics’ view of Sustainable and Industrial Agriculture.

 

I believe this table represents the general publics view of sustainable agriculture for many reasons. First look at all of the verities of produce that are available for purchase. Conventional agriculture provides bulk and verity to the consumer. Now look at the price column with conventional agriculture you are saving 20 bucks and in this economy that is a good thing. But with the low price comes an even greater price. What the general public doesn’t see as clearly as we should is that the industry has made the products cheaper by over production and speed. Speed is the name of the game in industrial agriculture. For instance the average life for a cow deemed for beef production is 12 to 14 months now when before the big agriculture boom it was 2 to 3 years. What allows for this to happen? Hormones. The beef industry uses hormones to allow for the cows to fatten up quicker. The crop producers also use hormones and pesticides as well to increase yields in crops. The hormones and pesticides used can cause harm our bodies or make us mature faster than normal. The reason they use these hormones and pesticides is to produce a product that is fresh to the untrained human eye. I normal person walking into the store is looking for a big thick and juicy tomato with no impurities. So the industry has created this product through the use of the hormones and pesticides. By buying this “fresh” product most people think that they are supporting farmers this is wrong.

Big stores only buy form big named producers by buying this product you are actually hurting local farmers. So next time you want local products go to the local farmers market. Farmers markets are the best place to support local farmers by buying their goods.

Chelsea Green-Issue of Spanking in Mainstream Media

In September of 2012, a law was passed in Delaware to ban parents from spanking children. Any physical “harm” done to children under the age of 18 will be classified as a class A misdemeanor and will be punished with one year in prison. This law startled me and sparked my interest. I believe that this law is over the top and takes away from the authority of people over the household. There is a difference between beating and spanking, and simply spanking as a mean of obtaining correct behavior should be justified. This issue is relatively recent because it only came into effect last year. The government should step back and allow guardians to run the household as they see fit, as long as the way in which it is ran isn’t harmful to the child.

There is a clear “anti-spanking” side and a “pro-spanking” side in the views of this issue. Most people who are against spanking are concerned with how the child is affected psychologically and the strain that could be caused between child and guardian. Most avid supporters of spanking agree with it because of the behavioral changes that it makes and it helps to establish authority in their households.

The common misinterpretation behind spanking is that it is abuse. Spanking is not abuse; it is just a mechanism used to establish authority and to receive a certain behavior from children. If there is no authority established, children may become unruly and run over parents. Spanking is in fact just “tough love” and many children thank their parents for putting them in line and go on to spank their own children. My essay will clarify misconceptions and give relevant information on why spanking shouldn’t be outlawed. I will give a social, cultural and psychological view behind spanking and hopefully some people to agree with my views.

Media concerned with organic foods----- Katie Anderson

The Mayo Clinic staff which is a very prestigious hospital posted some answers to some common concerns to many when deciding whether of not to purchase organic foods.  This article was found online and on their site, that show some of the differences between conventionally grown foods versus organically grown foods.  They mention many of the distinctions that I will be mentioning through out my research paper such as that organically grown product’s fertilizers do not contain the chemicals that say a conventionally grown product contains. They also make a reference to the USDA or United States Department of Agriculture sticker that is required to be on organic products.  This sticker informs the consumers that the product that they are considering to purchase is at least ninety-five percent organic.  For products that contain between ninety-four and seventy percent organic ingredients, they must say that they are made with organic ingredients, but they are not allowed to put the USDA organic certification sticker on their products.  Whether the product is edible or non-edible, they must contain this sticker on them if they are at least ninety-five percent organic to help the producers to be able to decipher between organic and conventionally grown products.  This is for the consumer’s sake, but also many producers would like to make sure that this sticker is on there for their own credibility.  Another common question that they hit on in this article is the question of whether or not organic and natural mean the same and the answer is no.  Natural can be hormone free and free-range, but organic must be certified by the USDA.  All of the questions that the Mayo Clinic is answering in this article are very relevant to my topic and has helped me to assure myself that I am focusing on the right questions and concerns that the general public likely has.

Mayo Clinic Staff. “Nutrition and Healthy Eating”. Organic Foods: Are they safer? More

            nutritious? Mayo Clinic Web. 7 Sep. 2012.