An 11-year-old boy will be tried as an adult in court for killing his father's pregnant girlfriend. Jordan Brown used his own shotgun to kill her. He had his own gun at 11-years-old because his father was training him to be a hunter. The boy got on the school bus after the shooting and got picked up several hours later. He is in the county jail, away from adults inmates. Dennis Elisco, the boy's attorney, hopes the school will sent him assignments while he's in jail.
"It looks awful from the outside and sort of unspeakable, but these are the kinds of feelings that are pretty normal in a new stepfamily. You just hope there's not a loaded gun around," said Patricia Papernow, a psychologist from Hudson, Mass., who heard about the case on the national news.
This is the first time I'd heard of this story, and it quite saddens me. It makes me wonder how a child could get those kind of feelings. Is it because of violence on T.V.? In schools? On the news? It also makes me wonder how much of the feelings dealt with the blending of two families. It also makes me wonder if the woman he killed was threatening the boy, or making him feel like he wasn't going to be part of their new family.
This makes me think the family could've done more with gun safety. Shouldn't the gun have been locked up? Here is a link to an article about gun safety in homes. "Although the debate over gun control and gun rights seems intractable, all sides generally agree that firearms in the home should be stored in a manner that keeps them out of children's hands. However, many firearms are dangerously accessible."
What do you think of firearm safety? Do you think parents need to be more cautious? Do you think 11-year-old should even have access to guns?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Blog 6 (Seat Belt Laws)
The decision to make stricter seat belt laws is something I've heard quite a bit about. This is a link to an article that talks about the state House rejecting the bill. Rep. Ed Gruchalla, D-Fargo, sponsored both bills. He said compliance with the seat belt law would go up and lives would be saved. Gruchalla also said that proposed increase in traffic fines were moderate and long overdue after several decades (Cole, 2009).
Currently officers must pull a driver over for another violation before they can write a ticket for failure to buckle up (Cole, 2009). Click it or ticket or Stay inside to survive! are two phrases you may hear in the late springtime around the area. Click it or ticket is a campaign that is used by almost every state to encourage drivers to buckle up. The campaign particularily focuses on nighttime buckling up because the nighttime crash fatality rate is about three times higher than that of the the daytime rate.
Click here to read a short article about politicians' policies on buckling up. Kind of interesting... I know we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source (which I hope someday will change), but it's the only detailed descrition of the campaign I could find, so feel free to read, if you'd like. And luckily, Wikipedia offered me a link to an article written by Dr. Williams in opposition to the law. The concept of his viewpoint is one that I know a lot of people like to use in arguments not just about seat belt laws. Click here to read it. His thoughts are "The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seatbelts?" (Williams, 2003).
I've heard people say things similar to what Williams said time and time again. And I used to and still do to a point believe the way he does. There are laws that protect us from harming others, but not from harming ourselves, but did you know suicide is illegal?
I would like to hear your opinions about Click it or ticket and Dr. Williams' thoughts. Do you think the laws should be stricter? Do you oppose such campaigns. I've heard several arguments about this, both in favor and in opposition. I have no opposition to the law; I know too many people who've gotten severly injured or killed in car crashes for me to not care. On the other hand, I am against social government and I realize that people have the right as an American to choose whether they want to wear their belts or not. So, even though I don't consider this a bad law, it may just be a gateway to a seemingly increasing trend of socialism in our country.
Currently officers must pull a driver over for another violation before they can write a ticket for failure to buckle up (Cole, 2009). Click it or ticket or Stay inside to survive! are two phrases you may hear in the late springtime around the area. Click it or ticket is a campaign that is used by almost every state to encourage drivers to buckle up. The campaign particularily focuses on nighttime buckling up because the nighttime crash fatality rate is about three times higher than that of the the daytime rate.
Click here to read a short article about politicians' policies on buckling up. Kind of interesting... I know we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source (which I hope someday will change), but it's the only detailed descrition of the campaign I could find, so feel free to read, if you'd like. And luckily, Wikipedia offered me a link to an article written by Dr. Williams in opposition to the law. The concept of his viewpoint is one that I know a lot of people like to use in arguments not just about seat belt laws. Click here to read it. His thoughts are "The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seatbelts?" (Williams, 2003).
I've heard people say things similar to what Williams said time and time again. And I used to and still do to a point believe the way he does. There are laws that protect us from harming others, but not from harming ourselves, but did you know suicide is illegal?
I would like to hear your opinions about Click it or ticket and Dr. Williams' thoughts. Do you think the laws should be stricter? Do you oppose such campaigns. I've heard several arguments about this, both in favor and in opposition. I have no opposition to the law; I know too many people who've gotten severly injured or killed in car crashes for me to not care. On the other hand, I am against social government and I realize that people have the right as an American to choose whether they want to wear their belts or not. So, even though I don't consider this a bad law, it may just be a gateway to a seemingly increasing trend of socialism in our country.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Blog 5 (Peer Critiquing)
This week is the first week of many more peer critiquing adventures on which we will embark throughout the semester. I have done this before, but I figured I needed to brush up on my skills, so I found this very helpful website. This site gives very detailed guidelines to peer critiquing. One of the first things I read on this site was one of the most helpful tips; it goes as follows:
Read the first paragraph and, without looking at the rest of the paper, write a description of what you think the rest of the paper will say. (Normally, the first paragraph should give a reader a pretty good idea about what is coming up.)
This is good advice because I think that if you cannot give a breif description of the paper, especially in journalism, the lead isn't strong enough. Most journalistic stories are written in inverted pyramid form, so the lead should be able to give that description.
More advice can be found on this link, prompting us to underline all sentences that appear as generalizations (not examples, quotes, or facts). This is also particularly important in journalism where our opinion is not needed.
This is another link to a peer critiquing guideline. The most important advice I found on this site was:
Intend to be constructive. Approach the piece with the intention of building it up, not tearing it apart, and as you would want a reviewer to critique your own work.
I think this is important because it allows us, as peer critiquers, to give constructive criticism without sounding negative. For example, I would not say, "Don't do this; it is wrong." Instead, I would say, "Doing this may be better or more accurate." That way the critique-ee isn't just looking at a bunch of negative remarcks. S/he is looking at ways to improve the paper.
Moreover, I think we also need to be open to giving our advice. I find that I am often afraid to offend someone by calling his/her work imperfect. I usually enjoy these opportunities of peer critiquing because I am able to perfect my story before turning it in. I don't know if someone else has the same reactions as me, though, so I tend to back off a little bit.
And finally, I found this article on eHow.com. Number 8 stood out to me, which stated this:
Explain why you made the comments you did. Say why you think certain things are effective and why others are not.
This is important because it may put things into perspective for the peer critique-ee. S/he will probably better understand the advice, instead of wondering if it is accurate or not. We're all learning here, so I would be more likely to take someone's advice seriously if s/he stated accurate reasons.
What do you think of the advice on peer critiquing in this post? Is it helpful? Do you have any other advice to offer?
My ethics blog: http://blogethics2004.blogspot.com/.
Read the first paragraph and, without looking at the rest of the paper, write a description of what you think the rest of the paper will say. (Normally, the first paragraph should give a reader a pretty good idea about what is coming up.)
This is good advice because I think that if you cannot give a breif description of the paper, especially in journalism, the lead isn't strong enough. Most journalistic stories are written in inverted pyramid form, so the lead should be able to give that description.
More advice can be found on this link, prompting us to underline all sentences that appear as generalizations (not examples, quotes, or facts). This is also particularly important in journalism where our opinion is not needed.
This is another link to a peer critiquing guideline. The most important advice I found on this site was:
Intend to be constructive. Approach the piece with the intention of building it up, not tearing it apart, and as you would want a reviewer to critique your own work.
I think this is important because it allows us, as peer critiquers, to give constructive criticism without sounding negative. For example, I would not say, "Don't do this; it is wrong." Instead, I would say, "Doing this may be better or more accurate." That way the critique-ee isn't just looking at a bunch of negative remarcks. S/he is looking at ways to improve the paper.
Moreover, I think we also need to be open to giving our advice. I find that I am often afraid to offend someone by calling his/her work imperfect. I usually enjoy these opportunities of peer critiquing because I am able to perfect my story before turning it in. I don't know if someone else has the same reactions as me, though, so I tend to back off a little bit.
And finally, I found this article on eHow.com. Number 8 stood out to me, which stated this:
Explain why you made the comments you did. Say why you think certain things are effective and why others are not.
This is important because it may put things into perspective for the peer critique-ee. S/he will probably better understand the advice, instead of wondering if it is accurate or not. We're all learning here, so I would be more likely to take someone's advice seriously if s/he stated accurate reasons.
What do you think of the advice on peer critiquing in this post? Is it helpful? Do you have any other advice to offer?
My ethics blog: http://blogethics2004.blogspot.com/.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Blog 4 (Writing)
This is the week our first beat story is due, so it only seems appropriate to write about writing. Journalistic writing can be great because it features a lot of quotes, so all we do is tell them. Although, retrieving those quotes can be difficult. I am heading up to the Annual Student Exhibition at VCSU this week to interview artists and fellow exhibit-goers. I'm afraid that I won't be able to find a time when there is actually someone else there with me. Luckily, I've already found two sources. Three to go... If anyone in this class has gone to or will be going to the exhibition and would like to comment on some of the artwork, I would appreciate some more sources. Or if anyone here has an exhibit in the show, I would like to hear your story of inspiration.
Finding primary sources is essential in journalism. When I was talking to sources for my beat, I noticed a lot of them enjoyed giving me quotes and their opinions. This is good because the public likes to hear other peoples' interactions. They want to feel as if they were there. This can be especially beneficial for the event. The more readers, the better the story, the more possible event-goers.
I find that secondary sources are not used much in journalism. To find out the difference, click here. A primary source gives me information at the time. There is not element of being in the past. It's all about the present, which is what I think newsreaders like to read.
I found a link that gives some information on writing an advance. Check it out, if you'd like.
As I'm taking an algebra course this semester, I have realized how much I really do like writing. I'm good with words, bad with numbers...
One more thing, I am having the most difficult time finding all these professional blogs. I've posted a thread on BlackBoard saying this:
I am having the hardest time finding all these professional blogs. First, I don't know how to search. I can't find a search or even a browse on Blogspot, so I just type in the criteria for the blog on Google (which I know runs Blogspot) but I don't find anything.
Is there an actual search on Blogspot? And also, how do you determine what a "professional blog" is? I would really appreciate it if someone who's having better luck than I am offer some advice. :)
Finding primary sources is essential in journalism. When I was talking to sources for my beat, I noticed a lot of them enjoyed giving me quotes and their opinions. This is good because the public likes to hear other peoples' interactions. They want to feel as if they were there. This can be especially beneficial for the event. The more readers, the better the story, the more possible event-goers.
I find that secondary sources are not used much in journalism. To find out the difference, click here. A primary source gives me information at the time. There is not element of being in the past. It's all about the present, which is what I think newsreaders like to read.
I found a link that gives some information on writing an advance. Check it out, if you'd like.
As I'm taking an algebra course this semester, I have realized how much I really do like writing. I'm good with words, bad with numbers...
One more thing, I am having the most difficult time finding all these professional blogs. I've posted a thread on BlackBoard saying this:
I am having the hardest time finding all these professional blogs. First, I don't know how to search. I can't find a search or even a browse on Blogspot, so I just type in the criteria for the blog on Google (which I know runs Blogspot) but I don't find anything.
Is there an actual search on Blogspot? And also, how do you determine what a "professional blog" is? I would really appreciate it if someone who's having better luck than I am offer some advice. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
