Category Archives: RS 3

Jacobs, Emma. “Wearing a school uniform doesn’t help us learn.” The Guardian.com. The Guardian, 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 July 2015.

Emma Jacobs, writer for The Guardian, publishes this argument, regarding school uniforms being more of a priority than children’s education, to shed some light on the school uniforms situation in schools. Jacobs opens up the article with Bradford’s act of sending home around 200 students in one week just for uniform infringement. But, Jacobs argues, the clothes the sent home students were sent home for were not random clothing but simple things like “they were wearing trainers or the wrong cut of trousers.” But, was sending these children home for not having the pristine uniform worth depriving them of their education?

The reason for school uniforms was so that kids wouldn’t pick on other kids because of fashion or trends. Although, Jacobs points out that uniforms keep kids from expressing their individuality. She continues to say, “It takes more than stipulating the right shad of blue shirt to eradicate bullying from schools.” Jacobs stresses that teens are going to find any reason to bully other people if they really wanted to.

Uniforms are also used to “help set high academic standards,” but Jacob disagrees with that claim by giving an example of how Finland’s schools “top international league tables and don’t have school uniform.” The United Kingdom, unlike Finland’s schools, use uniforms but don’t share outstanding academic results as those of Finland.

Pertaining to education, Jacobs states how non-uniform schools are allowed to dress comfortably for major tests, yet schools that enforce strict dress codes still have to wear “a suffocating top button.” “Who knows? I might have got an A* in math if I’d been in my onesie,” jokes Jacobs.

Jacobs addresses the issue all students have with their teachers spending so much time enforcing the school’s dress code that they are taking time away from educating the students academically and put more time educating the students on how dyed hair is a major distraction in the learning field. “Uniforms may work for police officers, soldiers and neo-Nazis, but they have no place in schools,” Jacobs exclaims. She is quite passionate against the idea of students sense of style being a distraction to other students. She ends the post by paraphrasing her main point of the post with, “Kids should wear what they want, their schools should let them – and then everyone could get on with some actual learning.” Schools are meant for learning, and by the title that Jacobs provides, she believes that children should not be sent home for what they are wearing to school because that would defeat the purpose of learning at school.

Mitcham, Mark H. “Recreational Track Meet.” Marijuana Policy Political Cartoons. N.p.,19 Aug. 2014. Web. 30 July 2015.

Mark Mitcham was born in the 1960 and currently a resident in Denver, Colorado. He is a recovering alcoholic, and a self-identified stoner who had a technical career in electrical controls. He started drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco in grade school. Later in his life he began to smoke pot at the age of 16. Finally in January of 1991, he quit drinking  after joining a group call Alcoholics Anonymous. Following the quit to drinking, a year later Mitcham quit smoking  tobacco. Currently he is a personal medical marijuana user, who finds the substance to be quiet beneficial. Therefore his username on the website  is the soberstoner.

In Mark Mitcham’s political cartoon, “Recreational Track Meet,” Mitcham portrays the controversy of different narcotics. Throughout the cartoon, Mitcham compare three well known narcotics like cannabis (marijuana), tobacco, and alcohol to show what the individual does to a person. He add little well known side effect, such as high, out of breath, and drunk and lost. The  consumer safety line represent a finish line how  user of the substance has not resulted in death while the other two substance runners are represented with terrible side effect and number of death within the lanes.

For the joint, Mitcham shows a little more favoritism toward the substance marijuana by drawing it as a winner of the race in the “Recreational Track Meet” cartoon. He shows how cannabis is more beneficial than any of the other substances because it has a low annual death while the other substance has a crap load of annual deaths of 443,000 and 25,000.  Near the finish line of consumer safety, Mitcham place some statistics of annual deaths for the different substances to show how harmful each one is to the current user and ex-user.

As a cannabis user he might be bias, but instead he uses so many different factual information to show his background knowledge about the topic he is trying to get through to his audience. Mitcham gave a caption to the political cartoon on the original website to state what he is shock about as he researched on cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol. Within his research, Mitcham managed to conclude that tobacco has killed more American than any other legal drugs or non-legal drugs.

The reason for this cartoon creation was because he felt a passionate connection to the substance during his struggle of becoming a sober person. Therefore this cartoon is a contribution back to society.

The banning of guns has been a controversy for many years. In Ellen Grace Jone’s article, “Why the US should Not Ban Guns,” Jone’s discusses this controversy of making guns illegal in the United States. At the beginning and end of her article, she mentions how Obama may finally act upon the controversy of gun control. Throughout the article she also informs the audience about many gun related incidents. Jone’s agrees that guns are dangerous but declares that banning them will make matters worse.

Jones is a socio-political writer and commentator. She seems to be a credible source by using and listing many facts about the disadvantages gun control has on communities. Recent news of Obama on gun control is shown in the article , making herself credible to her intended audience. Jones uses many citations where her readers can just simply click on the underlined words and find the sources. By having all these resources to go to makes Jones trustworthy and persuasive to her audience.

In her article , Jones argues that making guns illegal can have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect of having less shootings and murders. By providing many facts Jones conveys her point on the gun issue. One fact she uses is how the ” murder rate is 25% higher than last year” in Chicago where there had been some “draconian gun laws.” Another fact Jones uses is how even in other countries such as the UK have had worse problems after guns were outlawed. She states, “…six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%.” These facts show how Jones is able to access useful and resourceful items to back up her reasons on the banning of guns.

According to Jones, ”Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work.”  She references to the failure of banning alcohol the same as the case of banning armed guns. People will still be able to find any guns that they can get their hands on no matter if they are outlawed or not. She then continues to apply her well done research on the issue. Jones states, ” Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.”

Furthermore, Jones mentions in the beginning of the article and the last paragraph about how she wishes firearms did not exist to make a deeper connection to her audience. In other words, even if she doesn’t agree that guns should be legal she tries to make her audience understand that by outlawing them would mean more burdens. She herself has to accept the fact that banning these firearms would only increase gun-crimes.

SeaWorld. An Open Letter from SeaWorld’s Animal Advocates [web log post]. SeaWorld. Retrieved from http://seaworldcares.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Engish_Letter.pdf?from=Top_Nav

SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment has repeatedly been accused of mistreating its animals that are held in captivity, specifically its killer whales. In this open letter, SeaWorld addresses these accusations and insists that the animals that are under SeaWorld’s care are receiving the necessary attention they need and deserve.

I personally do not believe that SeaWorld is a credible source in determining the mistreatment of killer whales in captivity. SeaWorld claims that its men and women are “animal advocates,” but at the end of the day, with ticket sales decreasing in response to the constant criticism, SeaWorld will do just about anything it takes to bring back the park’s seasonal customers, even if it requires the occasional bending of the truth to manipulate newcomers into visiting their park. Although the SeaWorld company seems to be a credible source when referring to marine animals, the key points that SeaWorld addresses in its letter do not prove to be credible or well-researched. SeaWorld argues that their company places its animals’ health and safety above all else. However, they lack proper evidence to support their claims that say they care for their animals more than the money their parks bring in.

Recent reports have criticized SeaWorld and its mistreatment of animals, especially its killer whales. This open letter was a way “to set the record straight,” claims SeaWorld. SeaWorld then goes on to list six different facts that have stirred up controversy against their company.

The first fact states that “SeaWorld does not capture killer whales in the wild.” SeaWorld claims that they have not collected a killer whale from the wild for the past 35 years.

Fact number two explains that SeaWorld values the bond between a mother and her calf and claims that the trainers will hand raise the calf in the event that the mother cannot care for it herself. “We do not separate killer whale moms and calves,” SeaWorld urges, except when needed to maintain a “healthy social structure.”

Fact number three: SeaWorld claims to invest millions of dollars in its whales. The company insists that their money go toward “state-of-the-art, multimillion-gallon environments of cooled and filtered water” to ensure their animals’ health and safety.

Fact number four: “SeaWorld’s killer whales’ life spans are equivalent with those in the wild.” SeaWorld suggests that recent studies show that the life spans of their killer whales are comparable to the life spans of the killer whales in the wild.

Fact number five claims that “The killer whales in [SeaWorld’s] care benefit those in the wild.” According to SeaWorld, this is because they collaborate with “universities, governmental agencies and NGOs to increase the body of knowledge about and the understanding of killer whales.”

As stated in fact number six, “SeaWorld is a world leader in animal rescue.” SeaWorld states that their team is always on call and prepared to provide animals with the best veterinary care possible. SeaWorld claims to have rescued more than 25,000 animals and ultimately treat and return them to the wild.

“The truth about SeaWorld is right here in our parks and people,” SeaWorld says to convince us that they are indeed telling the truth. SeaWorld concludes this open letter with stating that they want to provide a lasting impact on their customers and have them gain a greater sense of appreciation for the sea and its life.

Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D. is an associate professor of psychology, at State University of New York at Albany, who believes marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. Dr. Earleywine argues the view of medical marijuana his opponents have. They think that there are other drugs are available for appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, and weight loss and there is no need for marijuana. He responds to that remark by stating people differ and there are multiple treatments for almost every human problem. Some patients do not respond well to other medications and need medical marijuana to alleviate their symptoms. He also says that many pharmaceutical drugs create aversive side effects that these patients cannot endure. In addition, medical marijuana is often markedly cheaper than these other medications. He also addresses the concern over marijuana’s impact on respiratory health is easily remedied. Dr. Earleywine says there are no links between marijuana use and lung cancer or emphysema. The associations between smoked marijuana and symptoms like coughing and wheezing can be remedied with the vaporizer. The vaporizer heats the plant so that active ingredients boil off into a fine mist, which contains no tars or noxious gases, making respiratory complications a thing of the past. This article is relevant to the controversy of whether or not marijuana should be legalized because it addresses the benefits of it.

This article is a credible source due to it being on CBS News and the fact that it highlights the view of a doctor who has actually been around the research of medicinal marijuana. Dr. Earleywine does back up his argument with factual evidence as well as research he has done on the topic. The venue being CBS News makes it credible, being that they have been around for so long and are trusted be the country to put out factual news about things happening with in the country. The text does present factual evidence in a responsible manner and you would probably be able to look them up. However he does not cite or credit where he has obtained his information from. The reader would be likely to believe him due to the fact that he is a doctor and they could assume that he has done his research (since it comes with the title).

Dr. Earleywine believes that the “most humane and just approach to helping the sick requires that we continue the availability of medical marijuana”. He mentions in the article how the use of marijuana “has a history spanning over 4,500 years”. Legalization of marijuana is beneficial, although there may be multiple pharmaceutical on the market they could “create aversive side effects that these patients cannot endure” as well as they are “often markedly cheaper than these other medications”. He recognizes that his opponents point to Dronabinol, synthetic marijuana in pill form. He however doesn’t think it’s a good idea due to those who may have trouble swallowing due to nausea. He also addresses the fact that people may fear respiratory health and he responds by saying “There are no links between marijuana use and lung cancer or emphysema.” Dr. Earleywine is for the legalization of medicinal marijuana because of it benefits

Earleywine, Mitch. “Opinion: Medical Marijuana Benefits.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 5 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 July 2015.

Gitlow, Stuart. “Marijuana Legalization Is a Risk Not worth Taking.” CNN. Cable News Network, 30 July 2014. Web. 29 July 2015.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/opinion/gitlow-marijuana-use/

Dr. Stuart Gitlow  attened medical school in New York and is the president and founder of the American Society of Addiction and Medicine. He is also the chairman of the scientific advisory board of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Dr. Gitlow compares marijuana to tobacco in order to state his point. Although the number of people smoking cigarettes have decreased tremendously, he states that in the 1980s the number was higher and people smoked everywhere. However, even though the smoking rates have dropped there is still a huge problem when it comes to smoking – they cause illness and early death.

Dr. Gitlow points out that marijuana just like tobacco is an addictive drug. Every “1 in 6 teens who start using marijuana will become addicted.” Not only will teenagers become addicted to marijuana but those who choose to smoke more frequently will cause their brain to be effected negatively. Heavy users 25 and under can “experience a drop in IQ,” while long term users can “experience psychiatric disease.”

Besides the effects marijuana has on the brain, Dr. Gitlow suggests marijuana should not be legalized because their is too much of a risk. Although it can not be scientifically proven yet that marijuana can cause early deaths, he states “we’ll have to wait a generation to find out, just as we did with tobacco.” However, he is not suggesting that the children of this generation should be “guinea pigs” to discover if that is an actual effect of marijuana.

Aside from the effects it will have on teenagers and the brain, Dr. Gitlow argues there will not be an increase in revenue for the government from the legalization of marijuana. Instead he points out that there are a “small percentage of state prisoners [in prison for] marijuana offenses.” The number of people being imprisoned will not drop drastically, therefore not having a big effect on the economy. Instead, legalizing marijuana will cause the United States to “lose money.” As stated by Dr. Gitlow, the revenue from marijuana will not cover the money lost by “illness” that the “taxpayers will [have] to pay.”

In other words, Dr. Gitlow is stating that “a brief high is not worth all the known risks.” Marijuana should not be legalized since it actually does not benefit the economy and most importantly, it will effect the children of this generation.