What do you think of these websites? Do you believe that there are problems caused by these social networks? Should parents become involved? Should they work on creating a better way to assure the safety of young teenagers?
MySpace is a fun and unique way to find old classmates, relatives, or even old friends and chat about what you have done since school or since you have saw them last. On the other hand, child predators can even find their victims on such sites. Kids as young as 9, nowadays, are making MySpace pages. Do you think kids that young should be able to have a MySpace? Do you think that if they do, they should have parental advisory?
http://www.polksheriff.org/NewsRoom/News%20Releases/Pages/StambaughMiddleSchoolTeacherArrested.aspx
-Tiffany Wommack
Should there be age restrictions on popular website such as Myspace.com and Facebook.com, and others similar to these?
I believe that there should be age restrictions on these websites. There should be an age limit of 18 and older placed on these social networks because they have become a place for communication for underage sex scandals. Randall, age 20, met a 15year old girl on Myspace, and they later met and had sexual relations (Link 1). In another case, a local middle school teacher had sex with former students with who she communicated with through Myspace.com (Link 2). Parents should be concerned about their children’s safety while online, and they should be aware of what their children are posting on these social networks. The government needs to step in and find a way to secure the safety of underage children on these networks. How do you feel about the issues that these websites are causing? What should be done about it?
1) http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=600564
2) http://www.theledger.com/article/20080606/NEWS/806060439/0/SPORTS09
-JR Robbins
With social network sites growing every day, I think there should be some kind of restriction on what people can and cannot do in their profiles. There must be a way that we can stop adults from interacting with young teenagers in these networks. I would like to say that what MySpace is doing to try to prevent this from happening will work, but I’m afraid it won’t (article on website bellow). I don’t think we could ever stop these things from happening because people will always be able to lie about their age, and the site will never know. They need to come up with some kind of system that requires something, which I do not know what it is, to be done so they can assure the safety of young teenagers. Parents around the U.S. should be concerned about this situation, and they should help find a solution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/21/tech/main1736549.shtml
-Rafael Valim
Many believe that MySpace is a place to have fun, meet new people and keep in touch with people you already know such as friends and relatives. That’s only one side of a two-way street. Others believe that MySpace is not a place for people under the age of 18. Some argue that it is a perfect place for child predators to find their victims.
Is it going too far for some children sometimes as young as 8 to create a MySpace page? Should there be rules and regulations on an age limit and some kind of way to screen out the young users? If an age limit is needed, what should it be? 16? 18? Many questions arise when the age of MySpace users is in the spotlight. What are your views on some of these issues?
-Chris Rice
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Compensation for organs...? Anyone?
Today, many people die while waiting for a kidney. The shortage of this organ is drastic. Some suggest ideas to make more donors available such as selling the organs for money, thus, creating an organ market. In America, these are illegal because they are said to be immoral or unjust. As a result, we are in need of organ donors. In the country of India, however, there is a different story. For years, India has been know as a "warehouse for kidneys" or a "great organ bazzar" with the world's largest center for kidney transplants with low costs and quick availability.
An article by M.H. Ahsan elaborates more on the subject in India:
KIDNEY SALE IN INDIA
For years, India has been known as a "warehouse for kidneys" or a "great organ bazaar" and has become one of the largest centers for kidney transplants in the world, offering low costs and almost immediate availability. In a country where one person out of every three lives in poverty, a huge transplant industry arose after drugs were developed in the 1970's to control the body's rejection of foreign objects. Renal transplants became common in India about thirteen years ago when the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine became available locally. The use of powerful immuno-suppressant drugs and new surgical techniques has indirectly boosted the kidney transplant activities.
The dramatic success rates of operations, India's lack of medical regulations and an atmosphere of "loose medical ethics" has also fueled the kidney transplant growth. The result has been that "supply and demand created a marriage of unequals , wedding wealthy but desperate people dependent on dialysis machines to those in India grounded down by the hopelessness of poverty"(Max). The pace of demand for kidneys hasn't kept up with the demand.
Consequently, the poor and destitute, victims of poverty, have either willingly sold their kidneys to pay for a daughter's dowry, build a small house or to feed their families or have been duped or conned into giving up their kidneys unknowingly or for very little sums of money.
Ironically, medical technology meant to advance and save human lives has been abused to such lengths, that in some cases, it has resulted in the death of innocent individuals. Most countries require living donors to be family members, or that organs must be removed from cadavers, usually accident victims. Because of the stringent rules regarding organ transplantation in other countries (specifically, that it is illegal and unethical to remove kidneys from a live donor, especially for money), and the shortage of kidneys, India has become (along with China) an "international center" for the transplantation of kidneys.
Furthermore, until recently, with the passage of the Organ Transplantation Act in 1994, there was not any legislation prohibiting the sale of organs in India. Due to the naiveness and desperation of poor, along with the fact that donating a kidney isn't particularly risky as it does not impair one's health, kidneys have become easily available in India.
Combined with low costs and the emergence of an illegal kidney black market which caters to the kidney buyers from around the world, many foreigners and the rich in India have taken advantage of and benefitted from the kidney trade. Only in January 1995, did the kidney scandal come to the surface through a series of incidents which received wide media coverage and prompted public outrage causing the Indian Congress to pass legislation banning kidney trade. On January 15, 1995, Customs officers in Delhi uncovered a "kidney tour" racket in which donors were enticed to go abroad for removal and subsequent transplant of their kidneys. Hundreds of donors were believed to have gone on such kidney tours.
To Read The Rest Of This Article:
http://www.hyderabadnews.net/articles/organsale.htm
So with that being said, the question is:
As we all know, organs in the United States are short. The government has set many rules and regulations on how these organs can be transplanted, unlike India. For instance, a donor cannot be compensated for donating their kidney, and we do not have any "organ markets." Do you think that if our government allowed the selling of organs through some type of compensation that there would be more donors? Do you think that what goes on in India is a better solution to the shortage? Do you think that this is immoral?
Tiffany:
I think that the shortage of kidneys and other organs is a very serious issue. As far as selling of the organs go, I do not think that this would be immoral that if a person is dead, and the family allows for the organs to be taken, compensation would not be wrong. It would certainly in my opinion rise the amount of people willing to put "organ donor" on their driver's license. Although, what is going on in India is not very benign to me, because there are many poverty-stricken people in India and they all jump on donating organs just to get by. Also, their government imposes very few laws on how the donation takes place. On the contrary, I think that it is great that a person in need of an organ can travel to India (although probably very expensive) and know that they will be helped.
Marilyn:
In my opinion organs for sale is a good idea. Just think about it, there are people who die every day--young and old--because there is such a shortage in organ donating. I think that if someone who is deceased have in their will or have on their drivers' licences "organ donor," why not take advantage of that? It's their wishes; no one forced them. I strongly believe if the government allowed it, there would be people everywhere donating their kidneys. It will save lives, and by the look of how the economy is declining in funds, it will also put money in poor homes.
Ana:
I think that it is not wrong for people to get some type of compensation for their organs, and I do believe that it will raise the amount of organs that are donated. Well, if you look at it people still do it illegally, so I think that it is better for them to do it safely and with the proper healthcare. I don't think that it is a better solution, but it helps the situation. I do not think that it is immoral because any one of us is allowed to do whatever they want with their lives.
Nataly:
I feel that something should be done to help those in need and in order to do so any measures must be taken. If the promise of money or other goods will persuade people to give a kidney, then I feel it should be done to save a life. Even though I feel a price should not be put on someone's life, I feel that if the government would allow a certain compensation or reward, there would no longer be a shortage. I also see why many may think it is immoral to allow this, but the truth of the matter is that we should be concerned with the current deaths due to long waiting lists and innsufficient organs or donors. I see it unnecessary for such a large number of people to die when something can be done. I fear that if something is not done there will be a loss of faith in today's medicine and medical resources as a result of this shortage.
An article by M.H. Ahsan elaborates more on the subject in India:
KIDNEY SALE IN INDIA
For years, India has been known as a "warehouse for kidneys" or a "great organ bazaar" and has become one of the largest centers for kidney transplants in the world, offering low costs and almost immediate availability. In a country where one person out of every three lives in poverty, a huge transplant industry arose after drugs were developed in the 1970's to control the body's rejection of foreign objects. Renal transplants became common in India about thirteen years ago when the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine became available locally. The use of powerful immuno-suppressant drugs and new surgical techniques has indirectly boosted the kidney transplant activities.
The dramatic success rates of operations, India's lack of medical regulations and an atmosphere of "loose medical ethics" has also fueled the kidney transplant growth. The result has been that "supply and demand created a marriage of unequals , wedding wealthy but desperate people dependent on dialysis machines to those in India grounded down by the hopelessness of poverty"(Max). The pace of demand for kidneys hasn't kept up with the demand.
Consequently, the poor and destitute, victims of poverty, have either willingly sold their kidneys to pay for a daughter's dowry, build a small house or to feed their families or have been duped or conned into giving up their kidneys unknowingly or for very little sums of money.
Ironically, medical technology meant to advance and save human lives has been abused to such lengths, that in some cases, it has resulted in the death of innocent individuals. Most countries require living donors to be family members, or that organs must be removed from cadavers, usually accident victims. Because of the stringent rules regarding organ transplantation in other countries (specifically, that it is illegal and unethical to remove kidneys from a live donor, especially for money), and the shortage of kidneys, India has become (along with China) an "international center" for the transplantation of kidneys.
Furthermore, until recently, with the passage of the Organ Transplantation Act in 1994, there was not any legislation prohibiting the sale of organs in India. Due to the naiveness and desperation of poor, along with the fact that donating a kidney isn't particularly risky as it does not impair one's health, kidneys have become easily available in India.
Combined with low costs and the emergence of an illegal kidney black market which caters to the kidney buyers from around the world, many foreigners and the rich in India have taken advantage of and benefitted from the kidney trade. Only in January 1995, did the kidney scandal come to the surface through a series of incidents which received wide media coverage and prompted public outrage causing the Indian Congress to pass legislation banning kidney trade. On January 15, 1995, Customs officers in Delhi uncovered a "kidney tour" racket in which donors were enticed to go abroad for removal and subsequent transplant of their kidneys. Hundreds of donors were believed to have gone on such kidney tours.
To Read The Rest Of This Article:
http://www.hyderabadnews.net/articles/organsale.htm
So with that being said, the question is:
As we all know, organs in the United States are short. The government has set many rules and regulations on how these organs can be transplanted, unlike India. For instance, a donor cannot be compensated for donating their kidney, and we do not have any "organ markets." Do you think that if our government allowed the selling of organs through some type of compensation that there would be more donors? Do you think that what goes on in India is a better solution to the shortage? Do you think that this is immoral?
Tiffany:
I think that the shortage of kidneys and other organs is a very serious issue. As far as selling of the organs go, I do not think that this would be immoral that if a person is dead, and the family allows for the organs to be taken, compensation would not be wrong. It would certainly in my opinion rise the amount of people willing to put "organ donor" on their driver's license. Although, what is going on in India is not very benign to me, because there are many poverty-stricken people in India and they all jump on donating organs just to get by. Also, their government imposes very few laws on how the donation takes place. On the contrary, I think that it is great that a person in need of an organ can travel to India (although probably very expensive) and know that they will be helped.
Marilyn:
In my opinion organs for sale is a good idea. Just think about it, there are people who die every day--young and old--because there is such a shortage in organ donating. I think that if someone who is deceased have in their will or have on their drivers' licences "organ donor," why not take advantage of that? It's their wishes; no one forced them. I strongly believe if the government allowed it, there would be people everywhere donating their kidneys. It will save lives, and by the look of how the economy is declining in funds, it will also put money in poor homes.
Ana:
I think that it is not wrong for people to get some type of compensation for their organs, and I do believe that it will raise the amount of organs that are donated. Well, if you look at it people still do it illegally, so I think that it is better for them to do it safely and with the proper healthcare. I don't think that it is a better solution, but it helps the situation. I do not think that it is immoral because any one of us is allowed to do whatever they want with their lives.
Nataly:
I feel that something should be done to help those in need and in order to do so any measures must be taken. If the promise of money or other goods will persuade people to give a kidney, then I feel it should be done to save a life. Even though I feel a price should not be put on someone's life, I feel that if the government would allow a certain compensation or reward, there would no longer be a shortage. I also see why many may think it is immoral to allow this, but the truth of the matter is that we should be concerned with the current deaths due to long waiting lists and innsufficient organs or donors. I see it unnecessary for such a large number of people to die when something can be done. I fear that if something is not done there will be a loss of faith in today's medicine and medical resources as a result of this shortage.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Assimilation...Now more than ever?
Assimilation is required in a nation that wishes to integrate immigrants into the society as part of the work force and as loyal citizens. The U.S. has an extensive history involving immigration, receiving millions of immigrants from every continent (except for Antarctica, obviously), so our ability to assimilate new countrymen and women has always been challenged.
Here is an excerpt from an article written by John Fonte from Hudson Institute on what he likes to call the "Patriotic Assimilation" of immigrants into the United States civic body:
"George Washington wrote John Adams that he envisioned immigrants becoming “assimilated to our customs, measures, laws,” and because of this, he predicted, native-born citizens and immigrants would “soon become one people.” In the same vein, more than a century later Theodore Roosevelt stated, “The immigrant who comes here in good faith [and] becomes an American and assimilates himself to us... Shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But that is predicated upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American...”
In a similar manner, Roosevelt’s chief political rival, President Woodrow Wilson, told immigrants at a citizenship ceremony, “I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin—these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts—but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become... With every purpose of your will thorough Americans..."
Closer to our own time, in a 1995 New York Times oped entitled “The Americanization Ideal,” the late Texas Democratic congresswoman Barbara Jordan wrote, “Immigration imposes mutual obligations. Those who choose to come here must embrace the common core of American civic culture,” but the native-born must “assist them” in learning about America, and, at the same time, must oppose prejudice and “vigorously enforce” laws against discrimination.
In different ways, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Jordan all advocated "patriotic" assimilation. Clearly, there are different types of assimilation. Economic assimilation implies that immigrants are doing well financially and joining the middle class. Linguistic assimilation means that newcomers are learning to speak English. Cultural assimilation could mean that immigrants are becoming absorbed (for better or worse) into the mainstream popular culture of twenty-first century American life. Although economic, linguistic, and cultural forms of assimilation are clearly significant, nothing is more important to the health of American democracy than the patriotic assimilation of the millions of immigrants who have come to our shores.
Patriotic assimilation does not mean giving up all of one’s ethnic traditions, customs, cuisine, and birth language. It has nothing to do with the food one eats, the religion one practices, the affection one feels for the land of one’s birth, or the languages a person speaks. Multi-ethnic and ethnic subcultures have enriched America and have always been part of our past. Historically, the immigration saga has involved “give and take” between immigrants and the native-born. That is to say, immigrants have helped shape America even as this nation has Americanized them."
So with this supposed influx of illegal immigrants (not only Mexicans, contrary to popular belief) our ability to assimilate others is being tested again. Some refuse to learn the language, and some refuse to acknowledge our American traditions. Will this lead to refusal to follow laws that they see as unjust in their own views? What kind of havoc will it create if immigrants refuse, or in some cases cannot adjust to our nation's Constitution?
If you would like to read the rest of the article: http://www.Hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2855
Amanda:
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Multiculturalism_vs._assimilation
"In North America, the United States is more representative of the assimilationist approach, being popularly known as a melting pot, while Canada is more representative of the multicultural approach, being known as a multicultural mosaic."
I feel that we need a clearer outline of what assimilation is expected from immigrants. Not all areas of the country provide the same level of diversity for the residents. It needs to be consistent. This article, I feel, covers both sides of the argument.
Billy:
I believe that the citizens of a country expect, and have every right to expect, certain things from people coming to live in their country. You are expected to abide by that county's laws, to contribute to that country's society/economy, and learn the language and dialect to better do these. But if an immigrant fails to assimilate and the government has to support them, they become nothing more than a leech. The whole assimilation process aims to integrate new citizens into the workforce and population so that they can become productive.
Daniel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601376.HTML
As Charles Krauthammer states: "The key to assimilation, of course, is language. The real threat to the United States is not immigration per se but bilingualism and, ultimately, biculturalism."
It is evident there must be a clear outline of what is expected of immigrants. As a nation, if we are to assimilate immigrants into society, we must initially provide full expectations. If not, as Charles states, immigration will then become a liability, rather than an asset. We must be productive and straightforward on this matter.
Here is an excerpt from an article written by John Fonte from Hudson Institute on what he likes to call the "Patriotic Assimilation" of immigrants into the United States civic body:
"George Washington wrote John Adams that he envisioned immigrants becoming “assimilated to our customs, measures, laws,” and because of this, he predicted, native-born citizens and immigrants would “soon become one people.” In the same vein, more than a century later Theodore Roosevelt stated, “The immigrant who comes here in good faith [and] becomes an American and assimilates himself to us... Shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But that is predicated upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American...”
In a similar manner, Roosevelt’s chief political rival, President Woodrow Wilson, told immigrants at a citizenship ceremony, “I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin—these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our hearts—but it is one thing to love the place where you were born and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become... With every purpose of your will thorough Americans..."
Closer to our own time, in a 1995 New York Times oped entitled “The Americanization Ideal,” the late Texas Democratic congresswoman Barbara Jordan wrote, “Immigration imposes mutual obligations. Those who choose to come here must embrace the common core of American civic culture,” but the native-born must “assist them” in learning about America, and, at the same time, must oppose prejudice and “vigorously enforce” laws against discrimination.
In different ways, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Jordan all advocated "patriotic" assimilation. Clearly, there are different types of assimilation. Economic assimilation implies that immigrants are doing well financially and joining the middle class. Linguistic assimilation means that newcomers are learning to speak English. Cultural assimilation could mean that immigrants are becoming absorbed (for better or worse) into the mainstream popular culture of twenty-first century American life. Although economic, linguistic, and cultural forms of assimilation are clearly significant, nothing is more important to the health of American democracy than the patriotic assimilation of the millions of immigrants who have come to our shores.
Patriotic assimilation does not mean giving up all of one’s ethnic traditions, customs, cuisine, and birth language. It has nothing to do with the food one eats, the religion one practices, the affection one feels for the land of one’s birth, or the languages a person speaks. Multi-ethnic and ethnic subcultures have enriched America and have always been part of our past. Historically, the immigration saga has involved “give and take” between immigrants and the native-born. That is to say, immigrants have helped shape America even as this nation has Americanized them."
So with this supposed influx of illegal immigrants (not only Mexicans, contrary to popular belief) our ability to assimilate others is being tested again. Some refuse to learn the language, and some refuse to acknowledge our American traditions. Will this lead to refusal to follow laws that they see as unjust in their own views? What kind of havoc will it create if immigrants refuse, or in some cases cannot adjust to our nation's Constitution?
If you would like to read the rest of the article: http://www.Hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=2855
Amanda:
http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Multiculturalism_vs._assimilation
"In North America, the United States is more representative of the assimilationist approach, being popularly known as a melting pot, while Canada is more representative of the multicultural approach, being known as a multicultural mosaic."
I feel that we need a clearer outline of what assimilation is expected from immigrants. Not all areas of the country provide the same level of diversity for the residents. It needs to be consistent. This article, I feel, covers both sides of the argument.
Billy:
I believe that the citizens of a country expect, and have every right to expect, certain things from people coming to live in their country. You are expected to abide by that county's laws, to contribute to that country's society/economy, and learn the language and dialect to better do these. But if an immigrant fails to assimilate and the government has to support them, they become nothing more than a leech. The whole assimilation process aims to integrate new citizens into the workforce and population so that they can become productive.
Daniel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601376.HTML
As Charles Krauthammer states: "The key to assimilation, of course, is language. The real threat to the United States is not immigration per se but bilingualism and, ultimately, biculturalism."
It is evident there must be a clear outline of what is expected of immigrants. As a nation, if we are to assimilate immigrants into society, we must initially provide full expectations. If not, as Charles states, immigration will then become a liability, rather than an asset. We must be productive and straightforward on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)