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.