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