With declining murder rates, the issue of whether or not the death sentence penalty shall remain in effect must be discussed. Although there have been studies which suggest that a rise in executions result in a decline in murder rates, when deciding whether or not the death penalty should remain part of the United States criminal justice system, the high expenses and morality must also be considered.
In recent studies, death sentences and murder rates have decreased dramatically. According to Liptak in his article Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate, "For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented." This argues that the number of recent executions have decreased the number of murder rates, and with less murder rates there are less cases to penalize with death sentences, thereby resulting in less death sentences and less murder rates. This connection between death sentences and murder rates is still merely a theory, however. As Liptak further mentions, "'It seems unlikely,' Professor Donohue and Professor Wolfers concluded in their Stanford article, 'that any study based only on recent U.S. data can find a reliable link between homicide and execution rates.'" There has not been enough recent data on death sentences and murder rates to provide sufficient evidence in supporting the claim relating death sentences to the number of murders. Therefore, it is safe to assume that murder rates may fluctuate regardless of the number of death penalties. Furthermore, the expenses of death sentences have recently increased. In her article Death Sentences Drop To Historic Lows In 2011 Sullivan writes, "The practice has been flawed, and it's getting very expensive." Execution has been known to further complicate things, especially due to its high expenses. In addition, the money spent on each execution could be spent on something else. Liptak says, "'Capital punishment is very expensive,' he said, 'so if you choose to spend money on capital punishment you are choosing not to spend it somewhere else, like policing.'" The vast sums of money used to execute offenders could instead be used to finance better reinforcements of the law to decrease crime rates in general. Executions do have there benefits, but overall it is more beneficial to remove the death penalty from the United States criminal justice system.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Macro Blog 12 - Homeschooling
With the development of new technology, the standard education process of one-room blackboard schools has become practically nonexistent. Schools have expanded and can use the aid of technology to better educate students using multimedia presentations, or use the convenience of the internet to research new topics. The development of technology has not only improved the conditions of existing school; it has also promoted the success of alternative methods of education such as homeschooling. Homeschooling is increasing in popularity, however it is not necessarily for everyone. When deciding whether or not homeschooling is the ideal method of education, it is important to consider the academic benefits, the social and emotional effects on the child, and the toll on the parents.
A common misconception of children that are homeschooled is that they are undereducated, which is overall false. In fact, according to Dr. Kellie Sorey and Dr. Molly H. Duggan in their article Homeschoolers Entering Community Colleges: Perceptions of Admission Officers, "homeschooled students had a significantly higher mean GPA than the traditional high school graduates." Many people assume that without the educational teachings from a certified teacher, students do not receive a proper education, therefore homeschooling is an inferior method compared to public schooling. However, without the distraction of other students, a looser learning style, and an individualized approach to conform to the learning style of the student, they are more likely to excel academically than traditional high school graduates, as study shows. So long as the parents are dedicated in educating their child and the child is dedicated in learning, homeschooling proves to provide a higher academic education than traditional schooling. Although the homeschooled child may learn more academically, this may not be the case socially and emotionally.
It is difficult to imagine how a homeschooled child would develop the social and emotional skills he or she would normally obtain through traditional schooling when said child is isolated in a classroom of one. According to Ryan's article The Advantages and Disadvantages of Homeschooling, "Not being able to learn with friends, and not being able to associate and congregate with other kids of the same age could lead to some developmental problems." Though it is true that homeschooled children will not develop the social skills they need in the same routine as traditional high schoolers, they can resort to other means of skill development. For example, in the article Homeschoolers on to College: What Research Shows Us, Dr. Brian D. Ray explains that homeschooled children "were quite involved in youth group and other church activities, jobs, sports, summer camps, music lessons, and recitals." So although a student may learn alone, there are endless opportunities for the student to interact with others, make friends, and learn the social and emotional skills they need in life. Parents must make note of which opportunities interest their child and encourage and motivate them to excel in those opportunities. Parents must guide their child and dedicate themselves to educate their child whatever way works best, which may take a toll from parents.
If a child is to be educated from his or her parents, the parents must make time for their child. Fiona Moon Pearl writes in her article Living Room School: The Real Deal on Homeschooling! that the three things a family needs to homeschool successfully are "A love for learning, a love for each other and strong family relationships with good communication, and parents who love spending a lot of time with their children." Time and time again, homeschooling has proved to be an exceptional form of education when executed properly. However, if the parents are not suited for instructing their child with educational and life skills, then homeschooling becomes inadequate. For instance, what good would homeschooling be for a child whose parents are constantly working and are never around the house? In this case, the child would be better off in traditional schooling. Parents must set time aside for their child and be there for support. Of course the child must also be dedicated and take it upon him or her self to study and learn independently through reading or online courses, however ultimately it is through the guidance and support of the parents who will determine the success of the child. This takes time and patience from the parents, so the parents must be willing and determined in order for homeschooling to become ideal, as well as determine the best routes of education for their child.
A common misconception of children that are homeschooled is that they are undereducated, which is overall false. In fact, according to Dr. Kellie Sorey and Dr. Molly H. Duggan in their article Homeschoolers Entering Community Colleges: Perceptions of Admission Officers, "homeschooled students had a significantly higher mean GPA than the traditional high school graduates." Many people assume that without the educational teachings from a certified teacher, students do not receive a proper education, therefore homeschooling is an inferior method compared to public schooling. However, without the distraction of other students, a looser learning style, and an individualized approach to conform to the learning style of the student, they are more likely to excel academically than traditional high school graduates, as study shows. So long as the parents are dedicated in educating their child and the child is dedicated in learning, homeschooling proves to provide a higher academic education than traditional schooling. Although the homeschooled child may learn more academically, this may not be the case socially and emotionally.
It is difficult to imagine how a homeschooled child would develop the social and emotional skills he or she would normally obtain through traditional schooling when said child is isolated in a classroom of one. According to Ryan's article The Advantages and Disadvantages of Homeschooling, "Not being able to learn with friends, and not being able to associate and congregate with other kids of the same age could lead to some developmental problems." Though it is true that homeschooled children will not develop the social skills they need in the same routine as traditional high schoolers, they can resort to other means of skill development. For example, in the article Homeschoolers on to College: What Research Shows Us, Dr. Brian D. Ray explains that homeschooled children "were quite involved in youth group and other church activities, jobs, sports, summer camps, music lessons, and recitals." So although a student may learn alone, there are endless opportunities for the student to interact with others, make friends, and learn the social and emotional skills they need in life. Parents must make note of which opportunities interest their child and encourage and motivate them to excel in those opportunities. Parents must guide their child and dedicate themselves to educate their child whatever way works best, which may take a toll from parents.
If a child is to be educated from his or her parents, the parents must make time for their child. Fiona Moon Pearl writes in her article Living Room School: The Real Deal on Homeschooling! that the three things a family needs to homeschool successfully are "A love for learning, a love for each other and strong family relationships with good communication, and parents who love spending a lot of time with their children." Time and time again, homeschooling has proved to be an exceptional form of education when executed properly. However, if the parents are not suited for instructing their child with educational and life skills, then homeschooling becomes inadequate. For instance, what good would homeschooling be for a child whose parents are constantly working and are never around the house? In this case, the child would be better off in traditional schooling. Parents must set time aside for their child and be there for support. Of course the child must also be dedicated and take it upon him or her self to study and learn independently through reading or online courses, however ultimately it is through the guidance and support of the parents who will determine the success of the child. This takes time and patience from the parents, so the parents must be willing and determined in order for homeschooling to become ideal, as well as determine the best routes of education for their child.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Macro Blog 11 - Drug Testing for Welfare
With a weakening economy, more and more people are resorting to government programs as a way to make ends meet. It is understandable for citizens to support one another in times of financial crisis; however there has been much concern with how the money from tax payers is used. As stereotypical as it is, many hard working tax payers feel the economy can re-flourish if the unemployed simply abandoned their drugs and stop being lazy. Though these characteristics do not apply to all members of poverty, it is not reassuring to tax payers if their money is going to the members of poverty that are addicted to drugs and lazy. Therefore, the controversial idea of drug testing welfare recipients has been suggested. This plan helps reassure tax payers that their money is going to people who need it; not to those who will spend it all on drugs. What makes this idea controversial, however, is that some argue that it is an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore a violation to the rights of the American citizen. When deciding if drug testing should be administered for welfare recipients, several components should be considered, including financing, the outcome of a tax payer's money, and the violation of constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
While the country is already in debt, there doesn't appear to be any sense in spending money to drug test the unemployed. Although it does increase government spending, what must also be considered is the amount of money saved due to unpaid benefits. According to the article States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare, "Only 16 out of 64,000 answered yes; 931 did not submit the form. The state estimated the savings on benefits had totaled $116,000" (Sulzberger). This amount of saving is caused by a mere thousand unpaid benefits and has much potential to benefit the country. According to Sulzberger, drug tests "cost up to $40." This means that the price for a drug test can be found for a reasonable price the unemployed can pay themselves. Florida has thought of this, and Sulzberger writes, "people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession." With people paying for their own drug testing and money spent on unemployment benefits decreasing, drug testing welfare recipients appears to be beneficial.
The hard working American citizen only hopes that their hard-earned money is spent to support the country and not gone to waste. A common reason for unwise spending is the drugs purchased with unemployment benefits. How can the government know whether or not the money they provide people in need goes to drugs? Drug testing is a way of reassurance to prevent spending on drugs. And although not all impoverished people are drug users, according to the article Unemployment Drug Tests: Republicans' Unprecedented Pursuit Of Drug Testing The Jobless, "unemployed people were more than twice as likely to use drugs than people with full-time jobs" (Delaney). This supports the fear of tax money likely being spent on drugs. Many working citizens have a similar fear of how their money is spent, and as Sulzberger says, "'Working people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them that their tax dollars go to support illegal things.'" Therefore, if drug testing for welfare recipients was enforced, the money spent would more likely support families in need of financial aid rather than drug addicts.
While the country is already in debt, there doesn't appear to be any sense in spending money to drug test the unemployed. Although it does increase government spending, what must also be considered is the amount of money saved due to unpaid benefits. According to the article States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare, "Only 16 out of 64,000 answered yes; 931 did not submit the form. The state estimated the savings on benefits had totaled $116,000" (Sulzberger). This amount of saving is caused by a mere thousand unpaid benefits and has much potential to benefit the country. According to Sulzberger, drug tests "cost up to $40." This means that the price for a drug test can be found for a reasonable price the unemployed can pay themselves. Florida has thought of this, and Sulzberger writes, "people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession." With people paying for their own drug testing and money spent on unemployment benefits decreasing, drug testing welfare recipients appears to be beneficial.
The hard working American citizen only hopes that their hard-earned money is spent to support the country and not gone to waste. A common reason for unwise spending is the drugs purchased with unemployment benefits. How can the government know whether or not the money they provide people in need goes to drugs? Drug testing is a way of reassurance to prevent spending on drugs. And although not all impoverished people are drug users, according to the article Unemployment Drug Tests: Republicans' Unprecedented Pursuit Of Drug Testing The Jobless, "unemployed people were more than twice as likely to use drugs than people with full-time jobs" (Delaney). This supports the fear of tax money likely being spent on drugs. Many working citizens have a similar fear of how their money is spent, and as Sulzberger says, "'Working people today work very hard to make ends meet, and it just doesn’t seem fair to them that their tax dollars go to support illegal things.'" Therefore, if drug testing for welfare recipients was enforced, the money spent would more likely support families in need of financial aid rather than drug addicts.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Macro Blog 10 - Offshore Drilling
In an age of technological advancements, people rely on some sort of energy resource to carry out their daily activities and among the most common energy resources are oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas have been obtained through drilling into the earth and coastlines in areas available for leasing. However, with the demand for more oil results in the demand for expanding offshore drilling. This has been a controversial debate for years but despite what environmentalists and oil industry leaders have to argue, the factors that are most important when considering expansion of offshore drilling in the United States are the increase in production of jobs, the risks it has on the environment, and the lasting effect it will have on the United States.
During economic struggle, jobs can be scarce. Expanding offshore drilling may very well increase job production and replenish the economy. According to a USA Today article, "at least 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from areas that are off-limits" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). With this much potential work, people can be expecting plenty of jobs. However, it is still unknown whether or not expanding offshore drilling and creating more oil rigs will be beneficial in creating jobs because "oil production in 2010 was at its highest level since 2003" (Broder). Since oil production was at its highest in 2010 since 2003, there was already a lot of labor involved and there is no guarantee that expanding offshore drilling will create enough jobs to make a difference. Although there will be work available, there is no telling whether there will be enough to prove expanding offshore drilling as beneficial, and so it is up to the individual to decide. The individual must also consider the harmful effects new oil rigs may have on the environment.
Environmentalists are constantly concerned with the dangers offshore drilling has with the environment. There have been spills and incidents since the first oil rig, including the recent BP explosion that Broder from the New York Times explains, "which killed 11 workers and poured nearly five million barrels of crude into the gulf." This spillage contaminates the water and could possibly affect several animal food chains. This has a negative effect on the environment as it pollutes the water and may harm its inhabitants as well. However, there is a chance the expansion of offshore drilling eventually won't harm the environment. According Jervis, Welch and Wolf, "Today's technology...has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills." With improving technology, the effects of oil may be reduced so much to the environment that it eventually may not even harm it at all, due to safety precautions. This is, however, once again up to the individual to decide whether or not taking the risk to expand offshore drilling will be worth it. This will then affect our future.
Before acting upon anything, we as a nation must consider what will be best for the country overall. Drilling offshore may have some benefits and risks now, but how will it affect our future? There are several risks that may prove disastrous if the benefits do not outweigh them. For example, it would not be worth expanding if the, "new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be 'insignificant'" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). The risks can prove disastrous and oil spills may cause a disruption in food chains. Factors such as these must be taken into consideration before deciding whether or not expanding offshore drilling is beneficial.
During economic struggle, jobs can be scarce. Expanding offshore drilling may very well increase job production and replenish the economy. According to a USA Today article, "at least 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from areas that are off-limits" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). With this much potential work, people can be expecting plenty of jobs. However, it is still unknown whether or not expanding offshore drilling and creating more oil rigs will be beneficial in creating jobs because "oil production in 2010 was at its highest level since 2003" (Broder). Since oil production was at its highest in 2010 since 2003, there was already a lot of labor involved and there is no guarantee that expanding offshore drilling will create enough jobs to make a difference. Although there will be work available, there is no telling whether there will be enough to prove expanding offshore drilling as beneficial, and so it is up to the individual to decide. The individual must also consider the harmful effects new oil rigs may have on the environment.
Environmentalists are constantly concerned with the dangers offshore drilling has with the environment. There have been spills and incidents since the first oil rig, including the recent BP explosion that Broder from the New York Times explains, "which killed 11 workers and poured nearly five million barrels of crude into the gulf." This spillage contaminates the water and could possibly affect several animal food chains. This has a negative effect on the environment as it pollutes the water and may harm its inhabitants as well. However, there is a chance the expansion of offshore drilling eventually won't harm the environment. According Jervis, Welch and Wolf, "Today's technology...has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills." With improving technology, the effects of oil may be reduced so much to the environment that it eventually may not even harm it at all, due to safety precautions. This is, however, once again up to the individual to decide whether or not taking the risk to expand offshore drilling will be worth it. This will then affect our future.
Before acting upon anything, we as a nation must consider what will be best for the country overall. Drilling offshore may have some benefits and risks now, but how will it affect our future? There are several risks that may prove disastrous if the benefits do not outweigh them. For example, it would not be worth expanding if the, "new drilling would produce only 7% more oil in 2030, and the impact on oil prices would be 'insignificant'" (Jervis, Welch and Wolf). The risks can prove disastrous and oil spills may cause a disruption in food chains. Factors such as these must be taken into consideration before deciding whether or not expanding offshore drilling is beneficial.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Macro Blog 9 - To Succeed or Not to Succeed?
As children in our modern day society we are led to believe we can grow up to be whatever we desire. We are fed the ideas that any of us can easily become an astronaut or a professional athlete. As we grow, we learn that this is only true to an extent; we have the potential to become whatever we desire so long as we work hard towards our goal, although the likelihood of success may vary. With this new realization in mind, we abandon our hopes of becoming president or solving world hunger for more practical occupations such as becoming a dentist or a teacher. And although we have lowered our expectations to succeed by seeking a more probable lifestyle, there still exists a common question: will a college degree help a person whatsoever in the work world? In his blog, "Will Dropouts Save America?" Ellsberg argues that college does not provide students with the entrepreneurial skills they need to succeed, and people are better off starting a business without a college degree. He says, "You don’t need a degree (and certainly not an M.B.A.) to start a business and create jobs, nor is it even that helpful" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/opinion/sunday/will-dropouts-save-america.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion). It is true that a person does not need a degree to succeed, however it most definitely helps.
Ellsberg explains that the reason colleges are not helpful to entrepreneurs is because they are not taught "skills like sales, networking, creativity and comfort with failure." Although these skills are not taught directly through courses and may in some areas be lacking in the college educational program, they are better learned with a college experience than without. Ellsberg states that colleges do not teach anything about sales, networking is best learned through talking with others, education stifles creativity, and colleges encourage the safe road to avoid failure. This is not entirely true. There are colleges that may offer business or entrepreneurship classes to educate the basis of sales. College is an opportunity to broaden one's horizons, to meet new people and make new connections. In addition, college students are encouraged to join forums and school-based networking sites to stay updated with recent events. Education may be prioritized over creativity, but it does not stifle it. There are boundless extracurricular activities for a college student to express their creativity in. Finally, it is true that failure is hardly ever encouraged. However, failing in the safety of a college curriculum rather than failing as a lone business owner appears far more comforting, and thus appears more suitable in developing an acceptance of failure. Though college isn't specifically about entrepreneurial skills, it provides far more for a person than having no further education whatsoever.
In her blog, "Does College Matter for Entrepreneurs?" Tice discusses how colleges benefit the entrepreneurs of the future. She explains that "college-student entrepreneurs today can often take advantage of plentiful campus-based resources" (http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/220306). In the technological era, business will be centered more and more around technology, and so a college education will greatly prepare an entrepreneur with the education they will require. Furthermore, as Tice explains, colleges have resources that may benefit an entrepreneur such as "incubators, mentoring and connections to possible funders." Colleges open new doors and opportunities for not only entrepreneurs but anyone looking to work. Also, Tice mentions that over half of business owners have a college degree. If the majority of business owners found success through obtaining a college education than why would an entrepreneur risk starting a business without a degree when they are more likely to succeed with one? Though it is possible to aspire without a college education, it is more beneficial with one.
Ellsberg explains that the reason colleges are not helpful to entrepreneurs is because they are not taught "skills like sales, networking, creativity and comfort with failure." Although these skills are not taught directly through courses and may in some areas be lacking in the college educational program, they are better learned with a college experience than without. Ellsberg states that colleges do not teach anything about sales, networking is best learned through talking with others, education stifles creativity, and colleges encourage the safe road to avoid failure. This is not entirely true. There are colleges that may offer business or entrepreneurship classes to educate the basis of sales. College is an opportunity to broaden one's horizons, to meet new people and make new connections. In addition, college students are encouraged to join forums and school-based networking sites to stay updated with recent events. Education may be prioritized over creativity, but it does not stifle it. There are boundless extracurricular activities for a college student to express their creativity in. Finally, it is true that failure is hardly ever encouraged. However, failing in the safety of a college curriculum rather than failing as a lone business owner appears far more comforting, and thus appears more suitable in developing an acceptance of failure. Though college isn't specifically about entrepreneurial skills, it provides far more for a person than having no further education whatsoever.
In her blog, "Does College Matter for Entrepreneurs?" Tice discusses how colleges benefit the entrepreneurs of the future. She explains that "college-student entrepreneurs today can often take advantage of plentiful campus-based resources" (http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/220306). In the technological era, business will be centered more and more around technology, and so a college education will greatly prepare an entrepreneur with the education they will require. Furthermore, as Tice explains, colleges have resources that may benefit an entrepreneur such as "incubators, mentoring and connections to possible funders." Colleges open new doors and opportunities for not only entrepreneurs but anyone looking to work. Also, Tice mentions that over half of business owners have a college degree. If the majority of business owners found success through obtaining a college education than why would an entrepreneur risk starting a business without a degree when they are more likely to succeed with one? Though it is possible to aspire without a college education, it is more beneficial with one.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Macro Blog 8 - The Keys to Freedom
When the automobile was first invented, few people were able to afford one. Time passed, and driving became integrated with our daily lives. Nowadays, just about every family owns at least one car. The need for driving has increased, as well as the number of drivers. I myself became a licensed driver approximately fifteen days ago and I am very pleased that I did. Driving can be fun and convenient, however it can be very dangerous. As people commonly say, "driving is a privilege, not a right." A driver must assume full responsibility and take precautions when behind the wheel. Since the first automobile, many regulations and laws have been passed to help create safer driving. A few of these laws include no texting and driving, a new driver must have his or her license for six months before driving other people who aren't part of his or her immediate family, and a new driver is punished more severely for driving violations. I agree with the majority of these regulations, however I feel a few aren't quite necessary. Texting while driving can be lethal and I have never nor will I ever text while driving. I agree that it should be a law to help prevent it from happening. I also agree that new drivers should be punished more severely, but to a limit. New drivers can be punished with large fines, the revoking of their licenses and may have to retake any driver’s education classes they have received and pass the road test once again. I only agree with the large fines portion. With large fines, drivers should be influenced to drive safely and properly. It truly intimidates me knowing that I can easily lose my license with a simple mistake. I do not feel that that is required in certain circumstances, such as speeding by perhaps 10 MPH. I also disagree about not being able to drive other people. It would be much more convenient to be able to drive friends, and it may even help the new driver learn to drive safely with distractions within the vehicle while that driver is still cautious and safe rather than six months later when that driver may have become overconfident and cocky in their driving capabilities. It is understandable that the additional consequences for unsafe driving will help encourage safe driving, and the restriction on who a new driver can drive will help prevent accidents early on, but as a new driver, I feel far too intimidated by the consequences and yearn for the permission to drive my friends. However, the law is the law and must be obeyed. I can only hope that in the future, safe driving can be encouraged through other means.
Macro Blog 7 - Fright Night
With Halloween coming up, people are out buying candy and costumes. They are decorating their houses and preparing for a wondrous night of fright. Recently, Halloween has not been the only popular source of fear. A few horror films have been released into theaters, some resulting in terrified customers. One of these films happens to be Paranormal Activity 3. I have yet to see Paranormal Activity 3; however I have seen Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2. From my past experience, the Paranormal Activity series do not seem frightening. Most of the "scary" events, in my opinion, tend to be predictable. I do admit that based on the box office sales and the previews, Paranormal Activity 3 appears to actually be scary. It was only a $15,000 project but last weekend it received about $54 million in ticket sales. I have heard good remarks about Paranormal Activity 3 from friends and critics alike, however I have also read of some disappointments. It is truly up to the individual alone to determine what that individual considers scary, however many people will preach of how scary or not scary a movie is anyhow. Some people have said Paranormal Activity 3 has a sturdy plot and can be unpredictable and frightening. Others argue that it is just the same as its previous films and wasn't really worth it. Although I did not find Paranormal Activity or Paranormal Activity 2 to be frightening, I did find them entertaining and Paranormal Activity 3 appears promising so you can expect me to contribute to their revenue, once it comes out on DVD of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)