Why Traditional Schooling is Superior to Online Schooling

            I strongly believe that traditional schools are more effective than online schools because traditional schools create stronger learning environments.

While some students do slack off in the lecture halls and classrooms by surfing Facebook on their laptops, the temptation to ignore the professor is far less than the temptation to multitask while sitting at a computer at home. Students who have difficulty paying attention in class have several options in a traditional college. They can take notes on paper, leaving all electronics behind. They can turn off their wireless radios to take notes on a laptop without having internet access. The physical presence of professors and teaching assistants also make students less likely to stray, for fear of being caught and reprimanded. With an online school, a majority of students are taking lessons at home, on a personal computer. This allows for distraction in the form of the internet, television sets, music, family members, pets, and food. Even students who head to internet cafes or libraries to access their classes find themselves surrounded by people with other tasks, possibly making noise and leading to difficulty concentrating. A classroom looks, feels, and acts as a learning environment, shutting out distractions and aiding students in focusing on the material.

The physical presence of a professor and other students also allows bonds to be created, an important aspect of class for students who need help or like to study with partners. Getting to know the professor makes it more likely that a confused student will seek his or her help if necessary. Bonding with classmates allows for study groups to form and friendships to be made, which can last well beyond the college years.

While online classes may be a less expensive way to complete general courses, traditional schools are the superior approach.

Raising Student Loan Rates

Alright, most people know that I'm a Democrat, but it's a very, very rare occasion that I find myself disagreeing with Republicans so adamantly that I stay up because I am just that ticked off. Currently, student loan rates are at 3.4%. There is a bill going through Congress that would keep the rates there. If the bill doesn't pass, rates will double to 6.8%. With the economy in the toilet and most students already in debt, this would create a possibly unrecoverable situation. Democrats and Republicans seem to agree that this bill needs to be passed, but they are disagreeing on where the funds should come from to allow rates to stay low.

Democrats want to revoke a tax break on larger corporations. Republicans don't agree. Little surprise there and, while irritating to me, not something that would infuriate me. No, the truly sickening part about the Republican proposal is that they would pull the funding from a specific section of the health care reform. That angers me more, but still I could bite my tongue and shake my head and hope for a compromise. So why am I so very angry? That specific part of the health care reform provides mammograms and pap smears to women who can't afford doctors.

I get it Republicans, you don't like Obama Care. But I can't think of a single rational person who would say that the best area to shut down is the cancer screening part. There were 454 thousand cases of cervical cancer and 1.6 million cases of breast cancer in 2010 alone. This isn't the flu or a cold. This isn't something that you can try to fight through without a doctor, without medication. This is cancer. And for many women, the healthcare reform is the only chance they have of getting tested and screened. This isn't abortion. This isn't even birth control. It's preventative screening meant to save the lives of hard working citizens. 

I don't know what is with the GOP lately, but they certainly seem to be trying to yank out women's rights. First, the right to choose an abortion with Planned Parenthood was shut down. Next, they fought against employer health insurance providing birth control, despite the thousands of women who use the pill for health reasons, such as dealing with ovarian cysts and regulating potentially dangerous hormone and cycle imbalances. Now they're attacking cancer screening. What do women have to do to regain their rights?

It makes me even angrier to see that Senator Jon Kyl is leading the fight. A man from my own twisted, messed-up state. Honestly, growing up I never really felt like discrimination against women was prevalent, especially when compared to what women of previous generations had to deal with. Now, though, it seems that being born without a Y chromosome may have marked me as the GOP's biggest enemy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/07/politics/congress-student-loans/index.html

http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/news-events/news-release/more-women-dying-breast-and-cervical-cancer-younger-age-developing-countrie

The Lack of Trepidation in Society

On Saturday night, I went with a friend to The Nest -- Alice Cooper's haunted house, which is considered one of the scariest attractions in the country. Being long-time horror fanatics, my friend and I had no reactions greater than a twitch with regards to the house the entire night. We greatly appreciated the effects and setup of the house, but most of our attention was turned on the other guests, especially during our second walk through.

Of the horror fans at The Nest, about 75% were having a normal reaction to the haunted house. That is, they were screaming bloody murder every time an actor in zombie makeup jumped from the shadows. The rest of us were laughing -- appreciatively at the skill of the actors or hysterically at the terrified guests. I couldn't help but wonder at those of us in that 25%. What does it say about the mindset of Americans that we can pass through gruesome scenes without batting an eye?

Now, it is possible that we weren't scared because we knew it was all fake. After watching hundred of horror movies, it becomes easy to notice even small details in effects that can cut through what would be an immersive experience. Or perhaps as a society our emotions are becoming hardened. Slaughter no longer concerns us; blood and gore no longer disgust us. Could this emptiness be crossing over from movies into the real of real life? Is it possible that we are viewing the horror of other countries -- Cambodian killing fields, Ugandan child soldiers -- as being of little more concern that the twisted creations of a movie producer?

Justice or Vigilantism?

Recently, President Barack Obama has announced that he is planning on sending 100 troops to Uganda in order to "remove" the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony. For anybody who doesn't know, Kony is the dictator who has been using child soldiers and the guise of creating a Christianity-based government to stay in power for over 40 years. There have been numerous failed attempts in the past to overthrow the LRA, and it's apparently gotten to the point that Obama feels the only option left is assassination.

The question, though, is: Is this right? Joseph Kony is arguably the most evil man currently alive. If anybody deserves a bullet, he does. But where do we draw the line? There is no question that removing Kony from power would give Uganda the chance to build a stable government and allow their scarred country to begin a long healing process. But if troops are sent in, guns blazing, after Kony, where is the line drawn? Who gets a trial and who a bullet?

Just last week, the head of state of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, was killed in cross-fire. The initial plan was to try Gaddafi for crimes against humanity, though his arrest never made it that far. Was the vigilantism of the rebel who shot him right? Or should he have been protected and allowed a proper trial? The same question can be posed to Kony. It is clear that Libya is in a better state now and working towards developing a strong government. Would the world be as elated and productive if Gaddafi was still alive and sitting in a cell, waiting for his trial?

Pol Pot was sentenced to house arrest -- a laughable punishment for a man who caused so much death and destruction. Stalin died in bed of a stroke. While it has been speculated that both of these men were killed by a vigilante's poison, it is not known definitively. Did the quiet death of these killers have a different effect on their victims than the justified execution of Saddam Hussein or the military shooting of Osama bin Laden?

If soldiers rush in and "remove" one corrupt leader, how do we know which leaders deserve a trial?

The "Protect Life Act" -- Putting Lives at Risk

Hello, everybody. I'm back. I didn't post this past year because it felt like I was talking to myself, but I feel like my poor friends on Facebook are sick of my continuous rants and comment debates. I suppose I'll try blogging again, and maybe this time I will feel less like a schizophrenic talking to voices only I can hear.

Three days ago, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that prevents federal funding to any health-care plan which pays for their clients' abortions. Let me set the stage by telling everybody that I am pro-choice. While I believe it's wrong and dangerous to use abortion as a primary means of birth control, there are occasions where it is proper. A woman is raped, baby and mother have incompatible blood types, an unborn child is diagnosed with a disease such as Tay-Sachs...these are a few times where I feel abortion may be the best choice.

Recently, however, there has been a slew of bills and proposals to make access to abortions as limited as possible, and not simply on the federal level. In my state, bills have recently been passed which ban organizations such as Planned Parenthood from prescribing the abortion pill. This means that women in rural areas must drive to the nearest large city to have a surgical abortion -- a far more dangerous process.

I feel that this bill places potential mothers in danger. Not all abortions are teenagers who forgot their condoms. Even adults who are trying to start a family may be pushed into a position where the procedure is necessary. If health care plans stop covering abortions in order to keep their federal funding, these women may find themselves unable to afford the expense. As fewer and fewer clinics are legally allowed to provide the easier and cheaper pill alternative, lives will be put at risk.

The Case for Marijuana

California was the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use and many other states have passed – or are voting on – their own medical laws. In the general election, California will be voting on a proposition to legalize anybody over the age of 21 having small amounts of marijuana. As a non-smoker, I am a firm advocate of this path and believe that similar propositions should be passed across the country. There are many logical reasons to legalize this particular drug:



1. Comparison to Tobacco and Alcohol
In 2009, almost 450,000 deaths were caused by tobacco, including deaths caused by second-hand smoke, cancers, emphysema, heart disease, and strokes connected to tobacco use.1 In the first half of this decade, approximately 79,000 deaths were caused per year by alcohol, including alcohol poisoning and drunk driving deaths.2 However, between 1997 and 2005, a total of 279 deaths were reported with a suspected secondary cause of marijuana (accidents caused by being under the influence). No cases were reported with marijuana as a primary cause.3 (I apologize that I was unable to find more recent, reputable data for these two statistics.)



2. Safety
Throughout the United States, approximately 16.7 million people used marijuana in 2009.4 Because these all included illegal, back-alley purchases, the quality and purity of the drugs were likely not tested by most users. The drugs may be mixed with dangerous additives so that dealers can stretch their stash, earning more money. Legalizing marijuana and selling it alongside alcohol and cigarettes would allow the regulation of additives by health professionals in the government, making use much safer.



3. Economy
While the economy is slowly improving, states still need money to continue the repairs. Some states have raised taxes temporarily to help, but most people are struggling to the point where any further raise in income taxes would be disastrous. However, a high sales tax on marijuana – as can be found on alcohol and cigarettes – would help much-needed money flow into education systems, repairing roadways, and programs to help poverty-stricken families. There is also the extra money that will be saved from stopping the hunt, arrest, and persecution of marijuana users. In 2005 (again I apologize for the lack of recent, unbiased data) around $7.6 billion dollars were used across the country.5



4. Actual Health Benefits
Between 1975 and 2006, four separate government-funded studies have shown that THC (the chemical which causes marijuana’s effects) can actually shrink tumors and prevent cancer, although it is not a cure. Marijuana was also shown in a 2006 government study to relieve symptoms caused by currently-chronic conditions, such as AIDS. Concise summaries and the titles of the journals (so that you may look them up yourself if you wish) can be found in the last five points on the list “Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it had Never Funded.”6



1. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/2.
2. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm
3. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000145
4. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm#Ch2
5. http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6476
6. http://breakthematrix.com/Alternatives/Top-10-Cannabis-Studies-the-Government-Wished-it-Had-Never-Funded/

Potential Infringement of Free Speech on Human Rights

The most significant right which separates the United States from countries whose residents enjoy fewer freedoms is the freedom to speech. As Americans, we can take comfort in the fact that we can say or write virtually anything we believe without fear of being thrown into prison for a crime such as verbally disagreeing with the government. I believe in this right, even for those who have views I consider incorrect or offensive. However, there is a point where this can be taken too far.

Today, a case was brought before the Supreme Court regarding free speech. Pastor Fred Phelps led a protest stating that God is punishing the United States for allowing homosexuality. This punishment is coming in the form of AIDS and soldiers killed in war. The protest also stated that soldiers who die in war are condemned to hell because they are fighting for the freedom of a country which has not outlawed homosexuality.

Ordinarily, though I do not agree with any of these statements, I would bite my tongue and walk away. Everybody has the right to share their own opinions. However, I find the setting of this protest to be infuriating. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court because the protest was being held outside of a soldier’s funeral. There are some lines which simply should not be crossed. I find it horrific that any person would disregard the suffering of others to this extreme. Interrupting a family’s mourning for a lost son – one of the greatest tragedies which can occur – with the opinion that their son deserved to die seems to me to be the lowest of the low. Bullying of homosexuals in schools has been a growing trend lately, but Fred Phelps does not have even the thin excuse of youthful ignorance to hide behind. As much as I fear the precedent of the law restricting free speech, this blatant indifference towards another’s pain is sickening and I hope that the Supreme Court will see terrible damage it can cause to another’s life.