26. March 2009 by student.

South East MEP supports calls for new licensing of lapdance clubs

04 June 2008

Lapdance clubs should be reclassified as Sex Encounter Establishments to give local authorities more power to better protect the women that work in them, and to protect those who live or work nearby, said the South East’s Green MEP today.

Under current planning law, lapdance clubs are dealt with in the same category as coffee shops under what is called a Premises Licence. This means that the authorities must regard them as equal in nature to coffee shops, pubs or karaoke bars, and thus can do little to regulate them or provide worker protection which addresses the specific conditions of the workplace.

In a letter to the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, Dr Caroline Lucas highlighted the campaign by the Fawcett Society to reform the licensing laws and asked for its view on how the current law complies with EU directives on sex discrimination at work.

She said:

“With over 300 lapdance clubs already operating in the UK under little regulation, we must seek to protect those women who work in them, given the increased risks they face in such a sexualised workplace.

“It is absurd that an establishment which makes its income from the sexual objectification of women, in an adult entertainment industry which commercialises female sexuality - usually for male profit - can be established in any town or city in the same way as a coffee shop, with no additional provisions for worker safety.

“By renaming lapdance clubs as Sex Encounter Establishments and so regulating them under the Local Government Act 1982 alongside sex shops and sex cinemas, the UK government would effectively give more power to local authorities and communities to apply crucial conditions and make important decisions on, for example, how many lapdance clubs should be allowed in the area, the presence of ‘private booths’, and the required distance between performers and customers.

“Current practice also fails to protect those who pass through areas surrounding the clubs. People who live within 100-200m of a proposed lapdance club are permitted to raise objections, but as the Fawcett Society points out, this ignores the impact on women who work in or travel through the area. Research in the UK has found that areas around lapdance clubs can become ‘no-go’ areas for women, and the clubs themselves can become centres of criminal activity which could put the female workers at risk.

Dr Lucas continued: “The EU is founded on a number of key values which must be taken seriously by all Member states - one of which is gender equality in the workplace. I struggle to see how we have any chance of achieving equality between the sexes when such establishments are left unchecked.”

If you share widespread concerns about the proliferation of lapdance clubs in the UK and agree that they should be licensed as Sex Encounter Establishments, you can petition the Prime Minister before 17th July 2008.

To show your support for the campaign in the UK, write to your MP before 18th June asking them to support EDM 1375 and Roberta Blackman Woods’ 10 Minute Rule Bill calling for licensing reforms. You can download a draft letter from the Fawcett Society website.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

25. March 2009 by student.

So I, like most, have a facebook. It keeps me connected with old friends and keeps me update. I log on all the time, and tend to stay on for quite to long. AS many of us know, facebook keeps changing. The new way makes it much easier for everyone to know your business. This may or may not be a good thing. Take for intance you being friends with your boss or family members. They see what you are up too and if it’s not so good they might go and tell your parents. Or, you call in sick for work, but then your status says ” at the beach”, coworkers find out and let your boss know, you get into trouble. Even with all of this though we still log on everyday, we update our status, write on our friends wall, tag pictures and take stupid quizzes to pass time. It gives us something to do, and since “everyone is doing it” why not? We think about the consequences our “facebook” actions may have and we still do whatever we feel like. Now of course this isn’t true for everyone, but come on who hasn’t  had something on facebook that they didn’t want there.

Now, with the ever changing economy, there is talk to charge users to be on facebook. This should NOT happen, I mean you don’t see myspace charging. Everyone will then just go back to myspace and forget about facebook. The creator is already making a ton of money of facebook anyway, so why charge users? Why charge us to stay connected?    Also, a few weeks ago, it was annouced that once you delete your facebook, the photos and everything on it still stay property of facebook. This of course sparked a lot of controversary and that idea was nixed. But why do they have to keep changing around something we all like so much? Clearly there is a reason half the people who have a facebook and myspace, just now only have a facebook. If things keep going this way, there won’t be anyone on facebook.

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

24. March 2009 by student.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Obama administration announced a major increase in security funding and the deployment of U.S.-Mexico border agents Tuesday as part of a comprehensive new plan to beef up resources at the Mexican border.

A police convoy moves in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, last month, across the U.S. border from El Paso, Texas.

The plan commits $700 million to bolster Mexican law enforcement and crime prevention efforts. The funds will provide, among other things, five new helicopters to increase mobility for the Mexican army and air force as well as new surveillance aircraft for the Mexican navy.

The initiative is designed to help with Mexico’s accelerating war against violent drug cartels.

The plan, developed by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, calls for doubling the number of border security task force teams as well as moving a significant number of other federal agents, equipment and resources to the border.

It also involves greater intelligence sharing aimed at cracking down on the flow of money and weapons into Mexico, which helps fuel the drug trade, the officials said. Watch CNN’s Michael Ware analyze U.S. efforts in Mexico’s drug war »

“The president is concerned by the increased level of violence, particularly in [the border cities of] Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, and the impact that it is having on the communities on both sides of the border,” the White House press office said in a statement.

“He believes that the United States must continue to monitor the situation and guard against spillover into the United States. [He] is firmly committed to ensuring our borders are secure, and we are doing all we can to reduce illegal flows in both directions across the border.”

The funds, meant to assist what administration officials described as n “anti-smuggling effort,” will complement ongoing U.S. aid to Mexico under the Merida initiative, a three-year $1.4 billion package aimed at helping Mexico fight the drug cartels with law enforcement training, military equipment and improved intelligence cooperation.

The administration also is looking to increase intelligence cooperation on the border with Mexican authorities, tighten enforcement of existing U.S. executive orders to go after drug trafficking money and money laundering and step up investigation and prosecution of cartel-related activities in the United States, the officials said.

To help strengthen the U.S. side of the border, the administration also plans to triple the number of Department of Homeland Security intelligence analysts dedicated to stopping Mexican-related violence. It also will increase the number of immigration officials working in Mexico, double the number of “Violent Criminal Alien” teams on the border, strengthen the presence of border canine units and quadruple the number of border liaison officers working with Mexican law enforcement.

It also will make an additional $59 million in federal funds available to support state, local and tribal border law enforcement operations.

At the same time, more agents from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives will be deployed to the border region. The agents will be given updated equipment and surveillance technology to help track the movement of cash, drugs and weapons.

“We are discussing more things we can do to address the very real problem of currency and weapons moving into Mexico and at the same time trying to prevent potential border spillover,” one senior administration official said.

The plan is scheduled to be announced at the White House by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and U.S. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden.

The announcement comes shortly ahead of a planned visit of three Cabinet secretaries to Mexico before President Obama visits there next month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits Mexico City this week, to be followed next week by Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been pushing back against U.S. criticism of drug cartel-related violence, which killed about 6,500 people in Mexico last year. In speeches and other recent comments, Calderon has said the United States also must take responsibility because much of the demand for drugs and most of the weapons used by narcotraffickers come from the United States.

“Mexico believes we are not acknowledging the transitional nature of the problem and the role the U.S. is playing in this,” another senior administration official said. “So we are looking at what U.S. law enforcement agencies can do to respond to the Mexican concerns.”

E-mail to a friend

CNN’s Elise Labott contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

24. March 2009 by student.

By Jeremiah Jacobsen, WINK News

Story Created: Mar 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM EDT

Story Updated: Mar 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM EDT

CAPE CORAL, Fla. - It was a power struggle in Cape Coral Monday night over the future of electricity lines downtown.

Just two weeks ago, the city council approved overhead power lines along SE 47th Terrace; but Monday night, they took it back. Opponent after opponent lined up, urging the council to reconsider what many of them say would be an eyesore.

Citizens expressed concern about safety, property values, but most of all, the ability of downtown Cape Coral to grow.

“We’re not going to be getting any developers coming in, and the downtown area is going to become a ghost town,” said Cape Coral resident Mike Sullivan.

The group in charge of downtown planning, the Community Redevelopment Agency, says underground lines would be better than overhead.

“These power lines would be within one foot of a building. You’d be able to reach out your balcony and touch a power line,” said CRA director John Jacobsen.

LCEC says the need for new lines is critical, as a growing need for electricity creates capacity concerns.

“22,000 in Cape Coral could be without power should something happen on this line,” said LCEC spokesperson Karen Ryan.

LCEC says it would support underground lines, but there’s a big difference in cost; perhaps as much as four million dollars.

“The other issue is the same for all of us. Who’s going to pay?” said Cape Coral city council member Dolores Bertolini.

While LCEC says it could cover the entire cost of overhead lines, the city would have to help pay the extra cost of underground installation. Many say downtown Cape Coral would pay a far higher price with overhead lines by losing future development.

“They’re ugly and we need to look at burying those wires,” Sullivan said.

The council will meet with LCEC, property owners, and the Community Redevelopment Agency on April 13th to see if they can figure out a way to pay for underground power.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

24. March 2009 by student.

I understand your point Bradley George, about how these animals may never be able to live their lives out in the wild like they want to, but really if they are bred in the zoo and kept there year after year; do you honestly think they have any idea what life is like outside of their habitat which is naturally for some in the zoo? If they haven’t a clue what life is like on the outside how can they have such emotions and depression that you mention that we can do nothing about? I’m just asking, so please don’t think I like the fact that zoos do what they do because I too hate it just as much as you do. I would love to see animals born and raised in their natural enviornment just like you and I have, but what about the studies among so many different species that are done with the inhabitants within the zoos? Without such zoos and environmentalist studies wouldn’t there be a great number of animals that “are” on display, never be able to be put on display other than being a taxedermy statue!?! Without these numerous studies of their habitual behaviors, diets, animal to human contact behavioral observances, and breeding patterns wouldn’t alot of these species that are in zoos be extinct? I mean without our intermittance in helping to keep alot of these animals from becoming extinct, in a way are zoos doing the wrong thing? Should we as humans and a species of our own not interfere per say with nature’s course of action to extinct certain species whenever she may so desire? The world changes every day whether it’s for the benefit of the human species or another or maybe even for it’s own self preservation (existance) should we really be trying to alter any of that?

There are certain species that wouldn’t still be on this earth or in existance if it wasn’t for our interferance with nature’s efforts of destroying them; hince the preservationists in the zoos that are trying to breed the less populated. Is that such a great thing to save all the species we can considering that there are plenty or at least a great number of species still popping up that we’ve never known about? Scientists are discovering many different new species especially in the great world of the ocean and yet we are also preserving the ones that are on their way out. Creating and preserving such an excess of different animals to inhabit this earth while at the same time the human population from what I understand is booming! All this kind of creates a smaller and smaller comfortable living space between humans and animals that mind you have been on this earth way longer than we have as humans.

Just take a look around, southwest Florida is a great example. I’m only 21 and have lived in Naples, FL my entire life. I remember when county road 951 in Naples had a dozen “Panther Crossing” signs posted along each side of the “two lane” road that it used to be, that as most know no longer exists on almost all the roads in Naples now. I watched this road and many others explode into highways and some so much bigger. Those “Panther Crossing” signs have slowly been taken down in most areas of this road because of the development surrounding this now highway has grown so much, the panthers have been forced to relocate. Now, from what I understand they were sure as shit here in southwest Florida before we were, right? So, how would you like to be relocated just because there isn’t any safe place to raise your children (baby panthers) anymore. Oh wait, that’s already happening for alot of people; moving to smaller cities and urban areas just to get away from all the “conjestion” and crime!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

24. March 2009 by student.

            Airport security used to rely heavily on metal-detectors to detect vigilantes with a concealed weapon in their carry-on bags or on their bodies. But after several failed field tests, it was time to find new ways to screen passengers. So they came up with intrusive pat-downs at checkpoints in the airport. This includes patting-down the passengers in order to try and feel for explosives or weapons on the body. But after multiple reports of the airport security “groping” passengers, it was once again time to find new ways to screen. Recently a new technology has been created called the “backscatter X-ray”. Time will only tell if this will be the technology we’ve been waiting for in security screening.

            The backscatter X-ray shoots a low-intensity X-ray beams that penetrate clothing and bounce off a persons’ skin. Unlike a traditional X-ray, the backscatter cannot see inside a person. Officials report that a backscatter scan gives off very minimal radiation. “It’s like being out in the sun for 15 to 20 minutes.” Reports from the National Council on Radiation Protection state that someone would need 2,500 backscatter scans a year before reaching illegal limits.

            Apparently in this scan, metal objects are highlighted by a heavy black line. Whereas body contours appear as a faint gray line. The issue of privacy raises high above all. People are worried that X-rays will see through clothing and that their images will somehow wind up on the internet. This backscatter scan promises to avoid this. But does that come with a price? This “edge detection” technology looks for changes in density or molecular structure on a person and draws outlines around those areas. This might cause problems in detecting some plastic explosives that have a density close to human issue. Many critics worry that this scan will only find the “obvious” stuff but not everything.

            These backscatter scans are just starting to be tested in airports around the world. The controversy surrounding this issue will continue until questions are answered. We will just have to wait and see if this new technology delivers what the people want: a safe, effective, and private way to screen airport passengers.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

24. March 2009 by student.

                Zoos are fun filled places that little children can watch cool animals that they might not see in their entire lifetimes up close and personal. To experience these animals can become very inspiring to little children and can spark ideas for their job later in life or make them have respect for the animals and try to keep them safe from extinction. Zoos are there for entertainment for the people that come to see the animals, but at what cost do the animals have for our entertainment.

                The animals in the zoos are in concentrated areas in the park and are not allowed to roam much and most animals need much room to walk around such as the elephant, giraffe, or tigers. The zoo workers try their best to make them as comfortable as possible, but they are captive in these cages and cannot do much. People think that the zoos are getting their animals from abused parents or animals that need help, but they are really just breeding these animals at the zoos from other animals, so they do not inbreed. All of these animals are not ever going to be able to get out and will never to be free in their actual environment.

                The zoos take care of these animals, but not as well as people think. In order to help some of the animals to other cages or give them checkups they need to use chemicals to tranquilize them in our to perform some of these things. Animals in their natural environment do not receive chemicals and can be harmful to the animals. No one ever thinks of the emotions that the animals have and can do nothing about it. Some of the animals just want to be free and life their lives and not be some trophies to show off in order for the zoo to get money.

                Overall zoos are not good for the animals at all. If an animal is saved they should go to a specialized facility to get proper care and eventually go back into the wild. Zoos are some ways good for the education of the children, but you can also get better information from TV then going to a zoo. There are way more cons from zoos than pros and if they continue to do this all of these animals will be treated cruelly and never be able to live their lives.     

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

24. March 2009 by student.

             Has the American government gone too far with their power?  Who is watching the government to make sure that they have not overstepped their bounds?   There is not a day that goes by that you can read a newspaper, watch a news show or hear on the radio about something that the American government or an elected official has done which confirms that they have too much power.  This power makes it not only a public matter but a personal matter as well, because it impacts every American, regardless of their social status, race, religion, or age.  Their power over other countries and their own people is taking away the freedom that America was founded upon centuries ago.   It appears that America’s government was no longer acting in the best interest of citizens, but instead attempts to lead by fear and intimidation.  An example of this is the Bush Administration.  Instead of effectively addressing the terrorist threat to the United States that was clearly demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration chose to use fear and intimidation as an excuse to invade the oil-rich country of Iraq. The reason for the United States attacking Iraq has really not been told to the American people, and the scope of this war has really not been realized by the majority of the citizens.   The American government uses these same types of tactics on individuals that do not do what the government wants them to do.  Even when we have laws that are supposed to protect individuals and corporations rights, the people in power put laws in place that allow them to do what they want to do. An example of this is the wire tapping that the government has been doing through international phone calls by the National Security Administration. The surveillance was done without warrants. Suspicious or not, these were calls any one of us could have made, and represent an assault on our privacy. 

              Although America is a democracy people are losing their voice.   By electing power figures, such as the President, mayors, and judges individuals are giving up their voice and allowing these officials to make final decisions for them.  This is a problem for the general public because after electing individuals to run the government they start to control everything including what information is let out to the citizens.  This then also makes it a personal matter because no one person can know everything that truly happens in the United States except those with the power who are in the government.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

23. March 2009 by student.

Most people who are involved in sports first got started in that sport when they were young and because their parents wanted them to stay active and involved.  There are a select group of athletes who choose to play at the highest level possible.  These athletes generally go from playing at a recreational level, to high school, to college, to professional level or the Olympics. 

From the high school level and above these athletes are put under a great amount of stress.  Whether the stress comes from their parents, peers, coaches or fans, the stress and pressure is there.  Many athletes are constantly trying to gain an edge on their teammates and opponents, in order to be the best. Besides the satisfaction of personal accomplishment, athletes often pursue dreams of a medal for their country, a college scholarship or a place on a professional team.   

Now the correct and healthy way to become the best would simply be working hard everyday at practice and pushing yourself to be better than you are.  Instead of putting in the extra effort necessary to be the best, some athletes are choosing to, in essence, cheat.  These particular let the pressure of becoming the best, break them.  Some athletes may choose to take performance enhancement drugs.   A common choice for athletes is taking an anabolic steroid, which enhances muscle mass. 

I feel that it is sad that this is what many athletes have turned to.  It is upsetting to believe that some of the world’s favorite athletes are cheating.  I believe we can find ways to manage this problem and one way would be to drug test more often at the collegiate and professional level.  The NCAA is trying to make sure athletes are staying clean, but they only chose to do two random drug tests a year for all athletes.  The NCAA chooses two to three athletes per sport (once in the fall and once in the spring) and tests them for illegal drugs and performance enhancement drugs.  I understand that testing more than twice a year will cost more money, but I believe it would be money well spent.  If athletes go through college knowing there is no way possible they can use drugs, then it will force good habits into their future.

I also feel that the colleges should start having a mandatory meeting at the beginning of every school talking about the negative effects of steroids.  If the pure fact of being kicked off the team and no longer being able to participate in college sports is not enough, the colleges need to mention the negative effects steroids have on the body.  For example “designer” steroids causes men to grow breasts, become bald, shrunken testicles, and infertility.  While in women it causes their voice to deepen, increase body hair, and baldness.  These steroids also may cause liver abnormalities and tumors, aggressive behaviors (such as rage and violence), depression and inhibited growth and development if taken at a young age. 

Athletes need to understand that there are healthy ways to become a more elite athlete.  I think the NCAA and the professional sporting organizations can help limit the amount of illegal drug use greatly by drug testing more randomly and often.  I understand that no matter what there will always be athletes trying to find different ways to take drugs, but if we can make the number go down even a little, I would be happy.     

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

23. March 2009 by student.

The drinking age in the United States should be changed to 18 or 19.  I believed it should be lowered based on history, other countries and the fact that many college students are participating in underage drinking. 

In the past theUnited States has tried to enforce prohibition laws to lower irresponsible drinking.  “These laws were finally repealed because they were unenforceable and because the backlash towards them caused other social problems.  Today we are simply repeating history.”  With the drinking age being set at 21, and college students ranging from the ages of 18 – 22, underage drinking is happening at every college.  “Drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing “forbidden fruit,” a “badge of rebellion against authority” and a symbol of “adulthood” (Engs).  There are statistics supporting the fact that those under 21 are more likely to be heavy drinkers.  22% of all students under the age of 21 compared to only 18% of students over the age of 21.  When comparing all drinkers, not only students, 32% of drinkers under the age of 21 are heavy drinkers compared to 24% of legal drinkers.

            TheUnited States has the highest drinking age in the entire world.  Japan and Iceland has a legal drinking age of 20 and South Korea has a legal drinking age of 19.  Every other country in the world either does not have a drinking age or the legal age is set at either 16 or 18.  Of these countries whose drinking age is set below 21, there are not excessive drinking problems.  I believe that by having a lower drinking age and not making a big deal about alcohol, people are more responsible when consuming it.  Young adults in other countries do not need to hide the fact that they are drinking and they learn to drink responsibly.  I feel that if the United States were to lower the drinking age, people would learn to be more responsible with it. 

            I strongly believe that the drinking age should at least be lowered to 18, because in the United States we are considered an adult at the age of 18.  This is the age when people are considered adults for most things, like firing a weapon and putting their lives on the line in battle.  Our country trust 18 year olds to vote, be on a jury, fight in war, but we do not trust them to consume an alcoholic beverage. 

                It is true that once the drinking age was changed back to 21 in 1984, the number of driving fatalities for 18 to 20 year olds fell 13 percent.  There has been an increase in other problems related to drinking during this time period as well, especially among college students.  There are studies that prove the number of kids vomiting after drinking, cutting class after drinking, missing class because of a hangover and getting lower grades because of drinking have all increased since the drinking age was raised back to 21.  This indicates irresponsible drinking.  “This increase in abusive drinking behavior is due to “underground drinking” outside of adult supervision in student rooms and apartments where same age individuals congregate and because of lack of knowledge of responsible drinking behaviors.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »