Chaining Dogs: Your right as an owner? Or an act of animal cruelty? By Davin Delong and Leah Brisco

Put yourself in this situation: its cold outside, wet, rainy, and you’re sitting in mud or you’re inside, all bundled up with your hot cocoa and watching a movie. See a difference? Now imagine the same situation for a dog but he can’t get out of his muck since he’s chained down. No way to get more food or water. This is just the start of the problems with chaining an animal. There have be a number of issues with dogs starving, dehydrated or even choking themselves. Especially in Florida, hot weather is the number one concern for people who chain their dogs. These four legged friends of ours can get dehydrated, sunburnt, and even die from heat exhaustion just like we can without the proper care. Yet there are many people who say that it is their right as an owner to leave their dogs out there, because they bought the dog, they bought the land, and it is their property.

Do we allow this issue to go on? Or is it even a problem? What if your dog is a jumper, and hops your fence on a regular basis? It would make sense to tie your dog to the dog house or to a tree for safety purposes, as to prevent him from running away. But what if something happens and your dog chokes himself on that chain? Or what if you leave to run a few errands and someone takes your dog because you left him out in the open, tied up with nowhere to escape to? All of these occurrences, while they seem far-fetched, happen on a daily basis in many communities. Many organizations are trying to pass laws to prevent the tethering of animals, but there are those who fight it. An organization called Dogs Deserve Better (http://dogsdeservebetter.com) has been protesting the tethering of dogs and passing laws to get them off of chains, yet those who oppose them say that they should be allowed to have their dogs tied up in the backyard however long they want to!

So here is the problem, do you think it’s ethical to chain a dog in the backyard or to the tree or even to his doghouse for any period of time? Should chaining your dog simply be outlawed? Should there be a time limit on how long you can leave your dog out unattended or force owners to be present if chained? Is it required that you provide your animal with shelter and food while he is tied up? Current laws either do not have anything to say about tethering your animals, or having “limits” on tethering them. What do you think should be done?

U.S. Government Listening In, by Kaeleigh Raulerson and Ross Mikovich

Even today, it is widely acceptable for the United States government to listen in on phone calls between U.S. citizens and foreign countries. In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed in 1978 states that a warrant issued from a special court is required to wiretap a phone call only if the call is being made or received by an American. Meaning, any foreign person calling any foreign country is completely free to be heard by our government.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, intelligence agencies began to operate much more aggressively. In response, the National Security Agency began using a tactic that intercepts large amounts of electronic communications by Americans and stores this as data. This method first got intelligence agencies in trouble over thirty years ago when signs of abuse were first discovered.

This raises question upon if our freedom is being violated due to the government storing small bits of information from random conversations of American citizens. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the program is currently being questioned. “The vast majority of what we did with the intelligence was ill-focussed and not productive,” a Pentagon consultant said. Should the government be able to track phone calls between suspect foreign numbers, even if sufficient evidence is lacking? Is this expensive program even worth continuing with little success in the past?

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/29/060529ta_talk_hersh#ixzz0iT2f4fup

Should We Learn A Second Language? By Katie Zeitler and Carolina Lyon

English is said to be the universal language, everywhere you go there is always someone who speaks English willing to help. But is English really enough?

In high school in the United States, students are all told that if they want to go to a four year college that they need two years of a foreign language. So your freshmen and sophomore years are spent learning languages like Spanish or Italian to get the credits. But that is all it is, once the 2 years are done the foreign language classes are not taken again and the language is never used in real life. However, other countries require students to take English not just for 2 years, but for many years. All through grade school, students take English so they are not just fluent in their native language but in English as well. In Venezuela, English is taught through the fifteen years of lower education. Before you learn to read, you are already listening to the first words in English, and when you get to college, you already know how to write essay in another language besides Spanish. Also, in college and higher education, English is another class that all students are required to take.

People who are fluent in another language have more opportunities in life than those who only know one language. Not only do the schools want people to learn another language, but business wants it to. Jobs opportunities are offered more to those who can speak more than one language than those who only know one. However, business is not the only privilege that comes from this.

According to studies, it has been shown that learning a second language results in students achieving greater divergent thinking, creativity, and cognitive development compared to monolingual children. A number of studies have also shown that when students learn a second language they have a tendency of outscoring those who are proficient in only a single language on tests of nonverbal and verbal intelligence. [1]

So not only does learning a second language open doors in the work field, but it can also make you smarter. This raises the question is English really enough? Or should the US push for people to learn another language?

---

[1] http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-importance-and-advantages-of-learning-a-second-language.html

Capital Punishment: Good or Bad? By Trina Porter and Nick Buchholz

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the killing of an individual by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Capital punishment is used in an attempt to deter crimes but is a very controversial topic. For some, capital punishment should be used when an act is so vile, heinous, and destructive that a community may feel it’d be justifiable to deny that person’s life. For others, capital punishment violates morality and is unethical.

There are many compelling arguments about capital punishment that some who stand into consideration who stand outside the realm of morality. There is a possibility of error-what if the person on death row was innocent? Some suggest an unfair administration, claiming capital punishment is inflicted relatively on minorities. What about moderate circumstances such as many who commit heinous crimes have suffered from neglect, emotional trauma, cruelty, and lack of love that for some would make it unfair to hold them fully accountable for their wrongful acts.
In several states like New Jersey, they are abolishing the death penalty. They say that it is cruel and unusual punishment and feel that life without parole is just as good as using the death penalty. Just like from the question stated earlier, there have been several cases where a man or woman has been on death row and later acquitted of their charges because they were found innocent. Not only may it not be morally right, but it can also be economically wrong too because on average New Jersey is paying $11 million per year to enforce the death penalty even if it was not used that year. To counter that though, people may argue the fact that if someone murders someone, they should not be allowed to keep their life in prison without parole. Leaving these people in prison without parole is taking up the space to bring in other criminals charged with less heinous crimes. Also to keep these people alive in prison cells costs just about the same as it does to enforce the death penalty.
The real question is up to the people though. Do we think that it is unfair to use capital punishment to sentence criminals? Is it considered cruel and unusual punishment?

Capital Punishment vs Corporal Punishment, by Kamal Dames and Jayde Lippert

In many places in the world today, the crime rate is going up. Whether it is for drug trafficking or possession, robberies, murder, rape, etc; once arrested, these persons get thrown in prison. The crimes are different. Some may not be too serious and others may be of extreme intensities. So one question that may be asked is what type of punishment is the best method for addressing crimes, capital or corporal punishment?
Capital punishment is the killing
of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain on someone for an offense, usually done in public. Capital punishment is found in many countries around the world and is used for persons who commit very serious crimes such as killing many persons. Corporal punishment usually involves the prisoner getting whipped or beaten every so often while they are in prison. So which one is more effective? We are not supposed to be killing anyone even if they deserve it, so I would say that corporal punishment should be carried out more. So even if we give someone capital punishment, why not apply corporal punishment along with it? Why not just let them serve life in prison and die naturally? So my main question is, if corporal punishment was applied more than capital punishment, do you think that the crime rate would increase or decrease?

Gun Control by Kristine G. and Tom

"All of a sudden I'm in front of some man. No he's a youngin but he's got a gun in his hand. He looks fifteen, he looks frantic, no he looks afraid. Immediately apprehensive til I heard him say "Do you want this It's not mine I promise. I found it on my block in between a couple garages. Didn't wanna leave it for a child to stumble over, I don't even know how to hold it." It was a thirty eight, the poor man's machete. Held it in my hand, thinking damn man it's heavier then expected. Wedged it behind my belt buckle, knowing that its evil, even thought that I could smell trouble. The extra strength felt weak, but over there on the corner saw what I needed and proceeded to cross the street. Put the heat in the mail box to lose it. Figured that the post office knows whats best to do with it."

-Always coming back home to you/ Atmosphere

Gun control is a highly debated issue. Should America tighten the laws concerning firearms? Many believe so, saying that tighter gun control will lower street crimes and even accidental injury. On the other side of the debate, many believe that the laws concerning firearms is strict enough and any tighter regulations will make it harder to acquire a gun, violating the Second Ammendment, our right to bear arms.

Tighter gun legislation could mean less crime, especially if the amount of guns in America is reduced. They argue less guns mean less violence. The leading advocate in restricting gun laws is the Brady Campaign, they believe the laws in place now make it too easy for dangerous people to get a hold of firearms. Their main focus is to make America a safer place. But would tighter gun control really make america a safer place? There is already a market for guns purchased under the table, just walk into the ghetto, guns will always be around. But restricting control can lead to less accidental deaths in the home and even suicides. Studies show that keeping a gun in a home raises the risk of homicide, with statistics saying Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009). They also argue that guns in the home are more likey to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental injury instead of actual self defense.

But what about our right to bear arms? We as Americans have have the right to self defense. The National Rifle Association believe that stricter laws will violate our rights and they argue that guns have actually decreased deaths. They argue that firearms are used for protection more often than they are used to commit violent crimes. Criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed National Crime Victimization Surveys and concluded, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." But what if a firearm got into the wrong hands? A child, a dangerous felon, your younger brother or sister?

What do you think? Should we make it harder to obtain guns? Do you believe your rights will be violated if the laws do become stricter? Both sides of the issue need to take into consideration both sides of the argument. Maybe new laws could help reduce violence without violating our right to bear arms. New gun laws could include required gun safety classes not for just the person obtaining the gun, but for the family. Or maybe not allow guns in households with children. We as American's need to decide on what we think is a happy medium.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.nraila.org/

Standardized Tests to Graduate Highschool?

Any of us who grew up in Florida are familiar with the FCAT and the arguments that it brings to the table. The only two sides in the argument are either to keep it or get rid of it. Those who want the test to stay say that its a good measure of where the students are at in their educational stand point and say its unfair to others who pass the test to allow students who didnt to move on. Those against it say that not all students are test takers and that the test doesnt portray the students actually learning ability.

But what these two sides over look is the fact that there are other sides looking in that could help get rid of these test and keep them at the same time. One of the biggest unlooked arguments would be to keep the test but not have it count toward such serious outcomes. For example, dont make it count towards graduation. There are a ton of students who had their college careers set out for them through sports scholarships and ended up having these scholarships removed because of a single test. Many people believe we should only use these tests as a bookmark to see where our students stand. Another popular view would be to have the test and the students GPA weigh out. Many colleges use this system with the SAT and ACT when students apply to college. This allows bad test takers to show that they still do good in school and maybe they had a bad day taking the test.

So as students, ask yourself , should these test stay as is? If not what changes would suggest? Or should they just be removed altogether?