The Digital Library Plan: But Not at Writers' Expense

          I read an article out of the Argument! called "The Digital Library Plan: But Not at Writers' Expense."  The article is about how Google has a library scanning program that they are declining the works in copyright.  It is Google's belief that writers should be happy that their work is being scanned into an online database because more of their books could potentially be sold.  Although this may be true, some authors are upset about this idea.
         The author of this article, Nick Taylor, states his opinion very clearly.  He is very unhappy that peoples' hard work is being put online for anybody to see.  This is an issue to them because they are not being payed for doing their job.  Instead of book sales being made, people now have access to these books.  Taylor responds to Google's opinion by saying, "It is obvious that people want more exposure, but they also should receive the compensation that they deserve."  Google is one of the most wealthy and successful companies out their, however, they are still trying to find ways to make money off of material that they get for no expense.
          I am agreeing with Mr. Taylor that writers do deserve to see their work being paid for.  These people are writing for a living and without being paid, they are basically working for nothing.  Not all writers are financially successful enough to give away free works to whomever wishes to see.  If Google were to give my writings away for free without permission I would take that as a huge slap in the face since they are making money off of my work while they had no part in it.  I think this is terrible, so I must give Google a big thumbs down for this one.

Does Breaking Bad Promote Drugs?

          Lately I have been too busy with my days juggling between work and school to make time for a social life.  Too much of my time is spent working and studying which doesn't seem to be paying off.  When Ii had finally burnt out on school and work I started seeing how important friends are.  On the downside, they all have jobs as well, therefore I had to find a way to occupy my time other than working or studying.  I blew the dust off my Wii and played some tennis (I'm a Pro).  That was fun for about two minutes, so I went to Netflix thinking I would watch a movie.  I ended up watching the first episode of Breaking Bad, and I am now A Breaking Baddict.
          I saw an article from the Time website where a man discusses how his colleagues at work believe the Breaking Bad television series promoting and glorifying drug use.  They state that they will never watch such a show that shows drugs in such a way.  The man writing this article says that he sees where they are coming from but he is just as hooked watching the show as I am.
        I definitely do not agree with this man's co-worker's opinions on this T.V. series.  I think that it does a great job at showing how selling and using drugs can break a person.  As an example, Walter White, a chemistry teacher/meth manufacturer, gets divorced which causes chaos throughout the family.  Jesse Pinkman, Walt's former student/drug dealer, loses several of his friends through their deaths because of his drug dealing.  Tons of hardships are caused due to the use or association with drugs in this series just as they do in the lives of the real drug victims.  The show does a great job of showing how drugs are terrible, which is why I disagree that this show "glorifies" drugs.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/20/breaking-bad-promotes-meth-use-argues-prosecutor/

My Daughters Have No Mother

          I read an article titled "My Daughters Have No Mother" from the Argument! textbook on page 378.  This article was written by Max Mutchnick, the co-creator of the television show Will and Grace.  In his argument he explains how him and his partner got their own children.  He says that it is not an easy task as a homosexual couple to come by the opportunity to have children.  Another issue he goes into detail on is how strange it seems that the children they want to receive will never get the chance to know their "mother."  Mr. Mutchnick ultimately argues that his daughters have everything that they need.
          Mutchnick refers to the biological mother as the "oven," or "surrogate."  This label bothered me a little bit because he is referring to the woman giving him the gift of two precious children as an oven.  Just a carrier.  Even though when opening up the article he explains how thankful he is that she could help him and his partner out and adds that he means no disrespect by calling her an oven.  Although I thought this seemed slightly disrespectful, I still agree with his idea that daughters have everything they need.
          The article states that the two daughters still have a family, friends, love, happiness, and a home.  Mr. Mutchnick's daughters also have a pretty successful father to admire.  I could not agree more that these girls have everything that a typical family should.  Others try to come up with counterarguments such as children of homosexual couples lacking a parent of a mother or father.  There are plenty of children lacking a parental figure in today's society because of divorce and those children are not debated over constantly.  Children lacking a parental figure still have other people that they are close to that can make up for the lacking parent, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, and family friends.  I believe that these girls will be very well off without a biological mother around, just like all the other children that go on with life without one.          

Is Skin Cancer the Next Epidemic?

There are many individuals in today’s society worrying that skin cancer may be the next epidemic.  Studies have shown that over the years non-melanoma skin cancer has become  more of a problem.  It is estimated that more than two million individuals have been treated for this type of cancer.  In 1994, there was only an estimated nine hundred thousand people that were treated for it.  Over the course of time there has certainly been an increase in the number of people acquiring non-melanoma skin cancer, but is it really an epidemic?

This issue of non-melanoma skin cancer can not be considered an epidemic for numerous reasons.  First of all, cancer is not a contagious disease.  Non-melanoma skin cancer is the least threatening skin cancer and is rarely spread to other parts of the body.  This type of cancer often times only requires a simple and extremely small skin removal.  Another reason this can not be considered an epidemic is because there are many precautions that can be taken to lower the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer.

Some of the risk factors include severe sunburns in the past, excessive exposure to sunlight, and tanning.  By wearing sunscreen, people are limited to sunburns. Although sunscreen does not protect against the sun’s UV rays, a person can still make the decision to seek shade during the sun’s most effective times in the afternoon.  The easiest trick to lowering the risk of skin cancer is to stay out of the tanning bed.  Tanning beds are terrible on skin because of the excessive amounts of time that the body is exposed to all the ultraviolet radiation.  

I highly disagree with the article that I have read because non-melanoma skin cancer is absolutely not an epidemic.  Epidemics are contagious and unpreventable, unlike skin cancer which can not be spread and certain measures can be taken to lower a person’s risk of developing this cancer.  I do not think that it is right for people to write such articles that leave people feeling hopeless for the future, especially with a touchy topic like cancer.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/non-melanoma-skin-cancer-epidemic.html

A Little Civility, Please

                                                               A Little Civility, Please

I read A Little Civility Please on page 343 of our Argument! textbook.  This article really interested me because it has a lot to do with freedom of speech and expression.  It is about expressing somewhat touchy or inappropriate topics.  An example the author had given was a eleventh grader that wore a t-shirt to school with a picture of President Bush with the words International Terrorist written on it.  The article explained that the student was immediately pulled out of school because of his shirts message.

The article then went into discussion that all people are granted the right to freedom of expression through the First Amendment, even if they are a young man in high school.   The article then started to take things even further by explaining that students could also wear other shirts, such as Marlboro.  It was then that I began thinking about how wrong this idea seemed to me.  I strongly believe that a public education building is not the place to be wearing such absurd material.  I find shirts that call a United States President a terrorist to be extremely inappropriate for a school.

The article also brings up the point that the writing of the fabric that makes up the inappropriate writing does not literally jump in front of others to physically distract them from learning the material that is being presented to them.  Although this is true, it is still unavoidably distracting to the other students in the class.  Schools are doing the students a favor by preventing this kind of material from being worn in their schools.  Schools should be limiting the amount of distractions to a minimum in order to assure that students are able to receive their education to the fullest.

USDA Needs New Restrictions

          Have you ever noticed that after eating McDonald's finest cheeseburgers you get a mctummy ache?  Well, after doing some research on why this happens nearly every time I eat this "food," I had come to find that they are being truthful in saying that they are using 100% beef.  The problem is how the beef is prepared.  I also discovered that this is not only an issue in McDonald's meat, but meat throughout the United States.
          I read an article and watched an attached video that gave a great demonstration to how cows are prepared to get more out of them.  The good meat cuts that are worth more money are taken first and left good to eat, for now.  The extra meat that is low grade and found between organs is then taken and put into a dryer that splits the "meat" and fat.  The meat is then washed in an ammonia mixture to get rid of the E. Coli and salmonella found in it.  This is followed by a fine grinding that results in the pink slime.  The pink slime is is added to other ground beef as a filler to get more out of it.  The USDA allows up to fifteen percent of this pink slime and does not require any products to label the ammonia meat percentages.
          I think this is outrageous.  The USDA needs to put a stop to this process or at least start by requiring producers to label the ammonia percentages so people are aware of what they are eating.  It disgusts me that the U.S. is allowing this ammonia meat to be in children's school lunches, fast foods, and even ground beef bought from the grocery store.  People should not be given this food that is technically low grade dog food without given a notice about it.




http://www.medicaldaily.com/mcdonalds-use-ammonium-hydroxide-wash-meat-angers-chef-jamie-oliver-theyre-not-only-culprit-video

Is Health Care a Right?

           I got extremely lucky in finding a juicy article from the Argument! textbook, as I had flipped open directly to the question "Is Health Care a Right?"  This topic is very interesting to me because I am currently in the medical field and plan to pursue a career in it.  I also believe that this topic will be somewhat interesting to the rest of the class because everybody is human, and capable of being effected by disease or infection.
          The author explains that poorer people are less likely  to live healthy life styles because healthy choices are so costly.  Cheaper food is typically not very nutritious and can lead to obesity and other major health risks.  The poorer and less healthy people are also more likely to attempt self medicating themselves and ultimately become drug and/or alcohol abusers, which also shows negative effects on health.  These individuals that need medical attention and do not exactly have the money for it are still able to get help, but is it a right?
          This article explains that there are some problems going on where wealthier people are complaining about those people that need Health Care but do not have the money to pay for it.  Doctors and surgeons are especial worried about this issue as one surgeon alone is providing care for free that would annually calculate to an estimated 180,000 dollars.  This is money that the surgeon could be adding to his salary, however never sees a dime of it.  Doctors and surgeons are quite unhappy with performing their jobs for free.  The article explains that they do not perform their jobs out of the "goodness of their hearts," but because they are obligated to by the federal law.
          This article finished off by saying, "We need a system that is fairer, both for patients and doctors."  I am one hundred percent in favor of this.  I do believe that everyone should be eligible to receive health care, however the professionals that are required to perform their job functions by law should be benefited in some way or another.  Some sort of payment should be made for these skilled individuals, whether it is from the patient themselves paying a reduced bill gradually over time or some sort of tax that could contribute to the doctor or surgeon's salary.  I believe that everybody should still be eligible to receive health care when needed and that those who have been doing this care for free in the past should be granted with some sort of benefit.