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?
Friday, February 15, 2013
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?
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Syrian Civil War
This article "Civil War in Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene" by Ja'anai Delaney is about if the U.S. should get involved with Syrian Civil War. Some people think we shouldn't because we have are own problems to handle. Some say we should because it's wrong that Assad is killing all them people. The government say we will get involved if they start using chemical weapons.
In the article it says "While the U.S. and its allies support the anti-regime groups, they have said they will not intervene military unless Assad uses chemical weapons." This means the U.S. will not send troops over to Syria to fight unless Assad uses chemical weapons. In the article it also says "Temporary camps built to house large numbers of refugees are only a short-term solution," This means that the people who are leaving Syria because of the war are being put in a refugee camp for a short period of time.
I think we shouldn't get involved. I think so because the U.S. is already in a huge debt and it will cost a lot of money to put armed troops over to Syria and to get them back home.
Will armed troops still be sent to Syria? Will Assad use chemical weapons? Will the government decide to not send troops over to Syria?
In the article it says "While the U.S. and its allies support the anti-regime groups, they have said they will not intervene military unless Assad uses chemical weapons." This means the U.S. will not send troops over to Syria to fight unless Assad uses chemical weapons. In the article it also says "Temporary camps built to house large numbers of refugees are only a short-term solution," This means that the people who are leaving Syria because of the war are being put in a refugee camp for a short period of time.
I think we shouldn't get involved. I think so because the U.S. is already in a huge debt and it will cost a lot of money to put armed troops over to Syria and to get them back home.
Will armed troops still be sent to Syria? Will Assad use chemical weapons? Will the government decide to not send troops over to Syria?
Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed
The article "All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed" by Esther Entin is about how kids unorganized play-time is being decreased and or stop in most places.
In the article it says "'Since bout 1955... children's free play has been continually declining, at least partly because adults have exerted ever-increasing control over children's activities. This means the children's free play is declining because adult are taking over there play. In the article is also says "children in 1997 spent less time in play and had less free time. They spent 18 percent more time at school, 145 percent more time doing school work, and 168 percent more time shopping with parents." This means that kids free time have been decreasing because adults make them go with them to go shopping. The adults make them go to school at a young age and they don't let their kids be kids.
I think that parents should stop trying to control their kids childhood. Most parents tell their kids what to play and how to play it. When I was a kid my mom would never tell me and my friends what to play or how to play it. We just use to play it and we make rules as we go along.
Will some parents stop controlling their child's childhood? Would they let their kids be to play? Will parents stop putting their kids in school at 3?
In the article it says "'Since bout 1955... children's free play has been continually declining, at least partly because adults have exerted ever-increasing control over children's activities. This means the children's free play is declining because adult are taking over there play. In the article is also says "children in 1997 spent less time in play and had less free time. They spent 18 percent more time at school, 145 percent more time doing school work, and 168 percent more time shopping with parents." This means that kids free time have been decreasing because adults make them go with them to go shopping. The adults make them go to school at a young age and they don't let their kids be kids.
I think that parents should stop trying to control their kids childhood. Most parents tell their kids what to play and how to play it. When I was a kid my mom would never tell me and my friends what to play or how to play it. We just use to play it and we make rules as we go along.
Will some parents stop controlling their child's childhood? Would they let their kids be to play? Will parents stop putting their kids in school at 3?
Friday, January 4, 2013
School Closings in Philadelphia
The article "Philadelphia superintendent identifies schools he intends to close" by Kristen A. Graham is about how the schools in Philadelphia are closing for financial reasons and student in enrollment. Some schools are moving to other locations. Some schools are being combined with other schools.
In the article it says "Shaw Middle School in Southwest Philadelphia has 193 students in a building that has room for 1,071." This means the school can hold 1,071 students but only have 193 students. The School District of Philadelphia cant afford to keep the school open or to pay for their utilities. In the article it also says "Next year, Strawberry Mansion students would be sent to Benjamin Franklin High." This means that the students from Strawberry Mansion are going to be moved to Benjamin Franklin High School.
I think it's not a good idea to combine the schools that they are trying to combine together. Like Communications Tech High into Bartram High School and Robeson High into Sayre. I think the School District of Philadelphia will save a lot of money.
Would it be hard for students to get to their new school? Will it be hard for students to get into another school.
In the article it says "Shaw Middle School in Southwest Philadelphia has 193 students in a building that has room for 1,071." This means the school can hold 1,071 students but only have 193 students. The School District of Philadelphia cant afford to keep the school open or to pay for their utilities. In the article it also says "Next year, Strawberry Mansion students would be sent to Benjamin Franklin High." This means that the students from Strawberry Mansion are going to be moved to Benjamin Franklin High School.
I think it's not a good idea to combine the schools that they are trying to combine together. Like Communications Tech High into Bartram High School and Robeson High into Sayre. I think the School District of Philadelphia will save a lot of money.
Would it be hard for students to get to their new school? Will it be hard for students to get into another school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)