Government's responsibility

Is it the government's responsibility to watch out for me as an individual? I don't think it is. Why can I go sky diving, bungee jumping, skiing, swimming in the ocean, snowmobile, jet ski, and so many other activities that average people do every day. All of these activities have the potential to hurt or kill me. So why are drugs any different? How did alcohol get legalized when you can drink so much that you stumble down a one way street backwards with your pants off and your underwear on your head. The fact that the government tries to protect us, ends up hurting everybody's pockets. Money goes towards these offenders who are looking for a thrill by shooting up and smoking out of light bulbs. So, philisophically speaking, is the government right for looking out for my welfare? Is it moral? Why do they get to chose what is bad for me? And isn't eating fast food pretty crappy for my health? We also have to pay publicly to be scared of drug dealers who aren't qualified. We have to pay the legislators to make laws. We then have to pay police to enforce these laws. Why doesn't the government just take control of the drug business, make it legal, and make a little money instead of us coughing it up in taxes.

Women's Education: Feminism?

women historically have been held to very different standards than men in the education system. In the earliest stages, education was offered to those with the proper status. This often meant white males, who could not only afford such education, but were of the most universally accepted and promoted gender and race. This automatically negated minorities and women. In part, this denial of education to women had to do with negative attitudes in society to women’s demeanor; as stated in the lecture, “it was believed that women should not learn to read or write (let alone more complicated subjects like math and philosophy) because such knowledge distracted women from their reproductive capacities”. This is particularly interesting to me; obviously, the attitudes of society can shape the actions of a nation, via legislation in government, and in turn, can devastate generations of people unfairly, in this case, women. However, much like the racial injustice of denying an equal education to whites and blacks was remedied via a judicial decision, the blatant denial of education to women was attempted to be set straight by legislation, specifically, discrimination to women in any federally funded education program. Strongly influenced by pro-feminist organizations, this legislation would expand, much like the in depth world of education did, and branch into the realm of collegiate athletics, extra-curricular activities, clubs and other organizations. The widely known Title IX, a non-discrimination statute that makes it illegal for universities to discriminate membership to certain activities on the basis of gender, serves as a testament to the evolution of these laws.

To Check or Not to Check?

So I have been reading a few posts regarding Affirmative Action and how race is used as a determining factor sometimes. This makes me wonder why we even have to check that damn box on everything about what race we are? I mean, I understand schools like to know the percentages of the races represented at the school. But I feel like it gets to the point where they just see a certain box checked and their automatically accepted; the rest of their application or whatever it may be, is not even looked over. Wesley discussed the Michigan Law school case in his comment in which Michigan Law used race as a determining factor and Michigan undergraduate didn’t. I like that Michigan Law promoted diversity and all but why should someone who is of a certain race be automatically picked? I feel like that in a way is racism. I want to be picked because I worked hard and I am qualified, not because I am of a certain race. So in the end, some of us work our asses of for nothing because someone else is picked over us, and not even because they are more qualified; it’s because of a stupid checked box.

Laws laws laws.

A large portion of this class has been defining Natural Law versus Positive Law. For the last day of class I want to go back to the definitions of these things to really think about opinions that have changed. Positive law is the "rule of the land" It is the law that is physically written down for us to adhere to. Natural law comes from a different place, from a "higher" place. Going into this course I was in the firm belief that these two were very connected. I now see that they are very connected for me because of my moral umbrella. I realize that not everybody lives under the same moral umbrella, and this is why we need positive laws. Yes, these laws sometimes seem ridiculous, or unfair, or biased, but without them I don't think that we would be able to function as a society. Natural law is different for every single individual, where positive law remains the same. It is funny that people can see the differences in moral umbrellas, but that there is so much debate over so much of positive law. What about juveniles in the death penalty? What about sexting?

Legalize it

Why is pot illegal? There are many reasons and theories that are out there but there are two that seem most logical. First, back in the mid 1900s hemp was going to make too much money compared to cutting down trees to make the same thing. The tree companies studied and campaigned against marijuana because their interest was money. Money seems to persuade many laws throughout the United States' history. The other reason it is illegal which probably ties in with the first reason is that it is immoral to smoke pot. It changes the mind and makes you crazy. It will undoubtedly make you eventually take harder drugs, ruin your life, and it WILL kill you. There are many things downgrading marijuana because of all of the initial claims the paper and tree companies created to get rid of competition. Now lets look at today. Prisons are overcrowded. Too much money is being spent on those prisoners by the public. I believe the amount of people who die from smoking pot is far less than drinking alcohol. It could help get rid of assaults, murder, and other crimes associated with the black market. Is it immoral to smoke pot? As always, morality is subjective. Isn't it my own responsibility for myself? Why should the government have to watch out for me? It would also help create jobs and more opportunities for people throughout the world. Which is more ethical, keeping it illegal, or legalizing it?

One Last Sexting Post

Over the past couple of months, sexting has been an issue that has been brought up several times. I want to take another stab at it. Sexting is an act that happens between two people and should remain between those two people. The law criminalizes anyone who is prosecuted for distributing or viewing these pictures when the person in the photographs is under the age of 18. Let's be real, society is changing drastically when it comes to sex and image. About 50 years ago, no one could even imagine sending nude pictures to a boyfriend or girlfriend, and the thought of being caught with such material would be detrimental to one's life. The times have changed. Playboy is an integral part of the media. The adult film industry grosses billions every year. The United States has allowed Nevada to make prostitution legal. And, Abercrombie sells thongs to girls as little as 6 years old. Times are changing. Whether it is for the better or worst (and in my opinion things have sometimes gone too far), the things that little girls and boys know is far more advanced than is was just a couple years ago. Little kids are losing their virginity as early as 10 or 11 years old and images of sex and sexiness are anywhere and everywhere. It's not hard to understand why teenagers have become engrossed in this portion of society and the "sexting" phenomenon (or crisis, or whatever you want to call it) has occured. But, we cannot penalize people for being immature and getting caught up in technology and sex. Just because this is a form of media that is now made readily available to teens is not their fault. We cannot penalize them for doing something that most would have done in a society such as ours with technology such as this if we were at their age. It's hard to draw the line and put a number on where this becomes more than flirtation and becomes an actual crime but I believe that all these factors need to be taken into account and each case needs to be handled individually to ensure that a precedent won't be set.

More affirmative action

A very hot topic in today's society is affirmative action. Many people, mostly white men, disagree with affirmative action for perfectly acceptable reasons. Why should a person get a job over another just because of the color of their skin? Or why should a woman get a job over a man just because she doesn't have a penis? I don't feel that this is what affirmative action is and why it was created. In the past decades, many minorities and women were not hired for positions solely because of their race or gender. This is quite obvious when looking back at what races and genders dominated what jobs and occupations. However, i do not think that affirmative action wanted to create a reverse discrimination policy in our time. This would prove to be counterproductive. I feel the creators of this plan wanted employers to stop hiring or not hiring on a gender or race basis. They wanted every person to get a fair opportunity to get a job. However, many businesses took this plan too far. They simply started hiring more women and people of different races just to make their company more diverse. This is why so many people are complaining when someone else gets the job over them who is of a different race or gender. They automatically assume that it was just because they were a girl or black man. This whole concept is ridiculous and if companies and businesses are still doing this, there need to be laws restricting it. Overall, i guess i take a feminist perspective in that if all men and women are created equal, then they should each have an equal chance at every opportunity.