http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27787134/
In Worcester, Mass. a woman was charged with raping and beating her 16 year old niece. The 16 year old was forced to work for the rest of the people in the household kind of like a "Cinderella-type situation" they say. Mara Escobar, the woman charged, was ordered held on $25,000 bail after she pleaded not guilty on Monday. She had a lot of different charges including assault and battery on a child and rape of a child with force. The 16 year old had a not so great room as opposed to Mara's two daughters having nice rooms with t.v.s and dvd players. The rapes happened between June 2007 and September 1. The girl had gone to social workers in September that she was being abused and she was referred to law enforcement.
This whole situation kind of disqusts me. To recreate the Cinderella story like this is not so great. This 16 year old girl will have this situation haunting her in the back of her mind forever. Within the article it talked about the rapes and it described that objects were used and she had been slammed to the floor, kicked, and punchced. From this incident she recieved two black eyes and a sprained wrist. The thought of a human doing this to another human is wrong. Not only is she a relative she is much older and should know better. Mara needs to fess up to what she has done. If you have done the crime you have to pay the time and people shouldn't lie at the stand like that especially when they can truly be proven guilty. Sure they wouldn't want to but hey, they shouldn't have done it in the first place. This has to be one of thee most sickening "Cinderella-like story" I've heard of. This girl has been having these problems for years and now it's the "aunt's" turn to suffer for a while.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Supreme Court Wrestles With TV Profanity Case
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446689,00.html
Today the Supreme Court were disputing dirty words on television. There was really no decision made about what to do. The main thing that was brought to attention was that these words are being used at times when kids are most likely to be watching. The case is between the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, and Fox Television Stations 07-582. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the reason why these words are so shocking is because of their association with the literal meaning of the word. Other justices said that they don't see a problem with putting a ban on these words on the television while other justices had little to nothing to say. Previous bans have been put out but the FCC didn't have enough explanation.
Personally I think that putting a ban on these words is a good idea. I have four younger siblings and I know they have heard things on television and have repeated them. My parents don't swear in front of the kids so the television has to be where they are getting it from. Hearing words like that come out of their mouths is just crazy. I don't like that they say those things so putting a ban on those words wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't want my kids to be running around saying a swear word because they think it's ok since they heard it from the television. Kids idolize people on television and think that it is alright to do, say, and act in the ways they do. It really isn't always ok obviously demonstrated by this case. By banning profane words on television won't rid of kids developing this not so great habit but it will make an improvement. Swearing really isn't all that necessary and I've been told by some teachers that it is only something that makes you sound "dumb" because you aren't intellegent enough to think of something more appropriate to say. I will have to say I somewhat agree with what my teachers have told me. Only somewhat becacuse I occassionally use a swear word out of frustration. I think that if this doesn't pass through the Supreme Court, the issue of all the sex and violence on the television needs to be addressed. Some of it is getting way out of hand and it is sickening.
Today the Supreme Court were disputing dirty words on television. There was really no decision made about what to do. The main thing that was brought to attention was that these words are being used at times when kids are most likely to be watching. The case is between the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC, and Fox Television Stations 07-582. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the reason why these words are so shocking is because of their association with the literal meaning of the word. Other justices said that they don't see a problem with putting a ban on these words on the television while other justices had little to nothing to say. Previous bans have been put out but the FCC didn't have enough explanation.
Personally I think that putting a ban on these words is a good idea. I have four younger siblings and I know they have heard things on television and have repeated them. My parents don't swear in front of the kids so the television has to be where they are getting it from. Hearing words like that come out of their mouths is just crazy. I don't like that they say those things so putting a ban on those words wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't want my kids to be running around saying a swear word because they think it's ok since they heard it from the television. Kids idolize people on television and think that it is alright to do, say, and act in the ways they do. It really isn't always ok obviously demonstrated by this case. By banning profane words on television won't rid of kids developing this not so great habit but it will make an improvement. Swearing really isn't all that necessary and I've been told by some teachers that it is only something that makes you sound "dumb" because you aren't intellegent enough to think of something more appropriate to say. I will have to say I somewhat agree with what my teachers have told me. Only somewhat becacuse I occassionally use a swear word out of frustration. I think that if this doesn't pass through the Supreme Court, the issue of all the sex and violence on the television needs to be addressed. Some of it is getting way out of hand and it is sickening.
Monday, November 3, 2008
What Exactly Is Clean Coal?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446266,00.html
This article is about the support behind clean coal for energy. Both presidential candidates are in support for continuing to use clean coal. Within the article both sides are presented as to the ups and downs of this type of alternative fuel. To some, clean coal means to reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Others say coal remains dirty aslong as it continues to put out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It has it's pros and cons but it continues to be 50 percent of what keeps our country going.
I think that if it is working now we continue to use it. Although it may be a little harmful to our atmosphere, it is a good way to give us more time to find other ways of alternative fuel. This is a major issue in our world and we need to do something about it. I've been told that the green act has been done before in history but none of the people from then have followed through with going "green". I think that my generation will follow through with it for a longer time at least. It really isn't that hard but we just need everyone to chip in a little bit. Government says that this clean coal is a little on the spendy side but wouldn't a new renewable resource be just as exspensive? We still haven't figured that out. Sticking with clean coal seems to me to be a good idea...for now. When technology moves on and we can figure things out as far as renewable resources goes, then we can change to do what is the new best thing.
This article is about the support behind clean coal for energy. Both presidential candidates are in support for continuing to use clean coal. Within the article both sides are presented as to the ups and downs of this type of alternative fuel. To some, clean coal means to reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. Others say coal remains dirty aslong as it continues to put out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It has it's pros and cons but it continues to be 50 percent of what keeps our country going.
I think that if it is working now we continue to use it. Although it may be a little harmful to our atmosphere, it is a good way to give us more time to find other ways of alternative fuel. This is a major issue in our world and we need to do something about it. I've been told that the green act has been done before in history but none of the people from then have followed through with going "green". I think that my generation will follow through with it for a longer time at least. It really isn't that hard but we just need everyone to chip in a little bit. Government says that this clean coal is a little on the spendy side but wouldn't a new renewable resource be just as exspensive? We still haven't figured that out. Sticking with clean coal seems to me to be a good idea...for now. When technology moves on and we can figure things out as far as renewable resources goes, then we can change to do what is the new best thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)