The article "Lebron disagrees with Jordan" by Michael Wallace is about how Lebron don't think that Michael Jordan is right to say Kobe is better then him because of rings.
The article talks about what Lebron thinks on what Jordan say about picking Kobe over him. Jordan said that he will pick Kobe over Lebron because Kobe has more rings than Lebron. Lebron says he don't care what Jordan say about the rings because "rings don't always define someones career." Lebron also says that if rings does define someones career than he would pick Bill Russell over Jordan because Bill have 11 rings and Jordan have 6. But every/anybody knows that Jordan was the best player that ever played.
I think Jordan was wrong to say that Kobe was better because of rings. It takes a team to get a ring not just one player. If Jordan was to say Kobe was better he should of talked about statistics. I think that Kobe is better than Lebron; but no one can really compare them to together because Kobe played more years than Lebron. My favorite basketball player is Kobe and i disagree to say that he is better because of rings.
I wonder if legends will argue against Jordan for this decision. Will some legends agree with Jordan and say that 5 rings is better than 1 ring. Do NBA fans agree or disagree with Jordan decision? This reminds of when people was comparing Kobe to Jordan.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Valentine's Day
The article "Historical Incorrect Canoodling" by Stephanie Coontz is about the history of Valentines Day. Where it Valentines Day came from and why it started.
In the article it explains that Valentines Day started to replace "a festival honoring Juno, the Roman goddess of love and marriage" and another "Roman fertility festival of Lupercalia". Valentines Day back in A.D. did not represent a day of love, they wanted to take the love out of the day. Lupercalia happens every Feb 15, boys would pick a girl name out of a jar and the girl name that comes up is now that boy "sexual partner for the rest of the year." It also says in the article that the people married without loving one another.
I think it was a good idea to start Valentines Day to take out these festival because girls could not say that they didn't want to participate. The girls in the Lupercalia would just have to have sex with that boy all year and have no say in anything. I don't think it was a good idea to try and take the romance out of Valentines Day.
I wonder what happened from then and now that Valentines Day is all about romance, and being with the one you care about and love. I don't understand why did they marriage without love. What was the point of marrying some one if you don't love them? Did marriage have a different meaning back in the day, then what it is now?
In the article it explains that Valentines Day started to replace "a festival honoring Juno, the Roman goddess of love and marriage" and another "Roman fertility festival of Lupercalia". Valentines Day back in A.D. did not represent a day of love, they wanted to take the love out of the day. Lupercalia happens every Feb 15, boys would pick a girl name out of a jar and the girl name that comes up is now that boy "sexual partner for the rest of the year." It also says in the article that the people married without loving one another.
I think it was a good idea to start Valentines Day to take out these festival because girls could not say that they didn't want to participate. The girls in the Lupercalia would just have to have sex with that boy all year and have no say in anything. I don't think it was a good idea to try and take the romance out of Valentines Day.
I wonder what happened from then and now that Valentines Day is all about romance, and being with the one you care about and love. I don't understand why did they marriage without love. What was the point of marrying some one if you don't love them? Did marriage have a different meaning back in the day, then what it is now?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Being Tracked by Your Cellphone
In the article "Are You Being Tracked" by Patrica smith is about how police can track people down by their cellphones.
In the article it says ",cellphones tracking technology was used mainly by federal agents in counter-terrorism operations and drug investigations." This means that cellphone tracking was use primarily for terrorists and drug investigation. The article also says "Investigators can determine where someone's phone was by using phone records that show the phone's location at the beginning and end of a call." This means that investigators can track you down by your phone's locations. From when you called and when you hang up.
I think it is a good idea that police and investigators made up this technology. I think so because it saves people lives. It find missing people. It find killers, drug dealers, thieves and other criminals. Help take them off the streets. Making the city a better place.
Would this technology back fire in some type of way? Will criminals find another ways to communicate without using phones?
In the article it says ",cellphones tracking technology was used mainly by federal agents in counter-terrorism operations and drug investigations." This means that cellphone tracking was use primarily for terrorists and drug investigation. The article also says "Investigators can determine where someone's phone was by using phone records that show the phone's location at the beginning and end of a call." This means that investigators can track you down by your phone's locations. From when you called and when you hang up.
I think it is a good idea that police and investigators made up this technology. I think so because it saves people lives. It find missing people. It find killers, drug dealers, thieves and other criminals. Help take them off the streets. Making the city a better place.
Would this technology back fire in some type of way? Will criminals find another ways to communicate without using phones?
Friday, February 1, 2013
New Face of America
The article "The New Face of America" by Veronica Majerol is about minority. How their is a majority of white people in the U.S.. They are saying over time that their shouldn't be majority of white people it should decrease.
In the article it says "Whites still make up the majority (63 percent) of the U.S. populations." This means that the whit people make up 63 percent of our world. In the article it says ", in the last three decades immigration to the U.S. has been highest from countries like Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines. This means in the last 10 years a lot of people have been being immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico, China, India and the Philippines. In the article is says ",non-whites have higher birth rates than whites. And finally, the white population in the U.S. is getting older, and older people tend to have fewer children." This means that there would be more non-whites soon because white people get old and not have children. Therefore their would be less white babies and people.
I think that by 2050 there would be more Latinos and Black people than White. I think so because White people sometimes only have on or two kids. Their kids might grow up and decide they don't want any babies. Black and Latinos on the other hand be having like 8 babies
What if the White peoples percentage increase back up to what it was? What would the percentage be if Mexicans, Indians, Chinese people, and Philippians stop coming to america?
In the article it says "Whites still make up the majority (63 percent) of the U.S. populations." This means that the whit people make up 63 percent of our world. In the article it says ", in the last three decades immigration to the U.S. has been highest from countries like Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines. This means in the last 10 years a lot of people have been being immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico, China, India and the Philippines. In the article is says ",non-whites have higher birth rates than whites. And finally, the white population in the U.S. is getting older, and older people tend to have fewer children." This means that there would be more non-whites soon because white people get old and not have children. Therefore their would be less white babies and people.
I think that by 2050 there would be more Latinos and Black people than White. I think so because White people sometimes only have on or two kids. Their kids might grow up and decide they don't want any babies. Black and Latinos on the other hand be having like 8 babies
What if the White peoples percentage increase back up to what it was? What would the percentage be if Mexicans, Indians, Chinese people, and Philippians stop coming to america?
Lance Armstrong, Another Chance
The article "Give Lance another chance?" by CNN is about a bunch of people from CNN talking about if Lance Armstrong deserve to be forgiving for what he did. For taking steroids and cheating while cycling. Some people say he should be forgiving because everybody took steroids and cheated. Some people say no he shouldn't because he kept lying to America about him not taking steroids.
In the article Kevin Powell says we all have are falls. He stated "We all have our flaws, we all fall short as human beings. So, yes, I do think anyone can be redeemed, and should be given another chance if he shows true remorse and make amends for his bad deeds." This means that Kevin Powell think that Lance Armstrong should be forgiving because everybody is not perfect or flawless. In the article Roxanne Jones says he's not trustworthy. She stated "Lance Armstrong, who maliciously lied for more than a decade, who I watched from my sideline seat in sports try to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me." This means that she don't want to forgive Lance Armstrong for his lying and cheating.
If you ask me, I would forgive him. Everybody lie and cheat in cycling. Also, Lance Armstrong did a lot for America. He did a lot for charities.
If Lance Armstrong would of said he did do steroids and cheated the first time the reporters ask him; would people follow his charities and support him like people been doing?
In the article Kevin Powell says we all have are falls. He stated "We all have our flaws, we all fall short as human beings. So, yes, I do think anyone can be redeemed, and should be given another chance if he shows true remorse and make amends for his bad deeds." This means that Kevin Powell think that Lance Armstrong should be forgiving because everybody is not perfect or flawless. In the article Roxanne Jones says he's not trustworthy. She stated "Lance Armstrong, who maliciously lied for more than a decade, who I watched from my sideline seat in sports try to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me." This means that she don't want to forgive Lance Armstrong for his lying and cheating.
If you ask me, I would forgive him. Everybody lie and cheat in cycling. Also, Lance Armstrong did a lot for America. He did a lot for charities.
If Lance Armstrong would of said he did do steroids and cheated the first time the reporters ask him; would people follow his charities and support him like people been doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)