28. April 2010 by student.

Child neglect is a serious problem. It does not bring about the strong reaction that abuse does. But it should. Neglect accounts for two-thirds of the 3 million reports made to child protective services annually in the United States. That’s the tip of the iceberg. There are severe short- and long-term harms of neglect. Neglect occurs in half the 1,500 child deaths attributed to maltreatment annually. Neglected children suffer many mental and physical health problems, such as depression and heart disease, decades later. Neglect contributes to juvenile delinquency and adult crime. The fiscal costs are enormous. We are paying dearly. Our response to neglect should be guided by an understanding of what contributes to this problem. I still believe that most parents care about their children. Most do not intentionally neglect them. Instead, there are usually several problems that compromise parents’ abilities to care for their children. Some reside within parents, such as depression. Others pertain to the family, such as domestic violence. Some are within the community, such as the burdens of poverty. A study found neglect to be 44 times more frequent in families earning less than $15,000 a year than among those earning more than $30,000.  Children are not brought in for medical care because the family lacks health insurance? More than 9 million American children have none. This does not let parents off the hook; they are primarily responsible for ensuring that their children’s needs are met. But neglect is not simply a result of parents who don’t care. What’s our current response? Sometimes neglect is reported to child protective services. About half of those cases get investigated, perhaps leading to helpful interventions. Too often, little happens. Caseworkers are often under-trained and overwhelmed, struggling in “a poor system for poor people.” Child protective services, mandated by law to protect children, often lack the funds to provide what children and families need. Still, there’s media and public outrage when disaster strikes on such agencies’ watch. Another response is to conveniently wag a finger at the responsible parent and seek punishment. Indeed, some circumstances warrant that. But in most instances, support and services are what children and families need. About 20 states are modifying their approach to neglect, replacing forensic investigations with evaluations of what’s needed such as affordable day care, accessible medical and mental health care, and low-income housing. Those who favor prosecuting neglectful parents need to consider who will care for the children of parents in prison. We don’t have good alternatives. Foster homes are in short supply. Separating children from parents is traumatic; it should be the last resort. Most neglect situations are less serious than those making horrible headlines. Most neglected children appropriately remain in their parents’ care. We need ways to improve their circumstances while monitoring their safety and well-being. There are policies and programs that provide families valuable support and services. We know about what works and what’s needed. Tackling poverty is critical; expanding the earned-income tax credit program and raising the minimum wage would help. Prosecuting parents is not a solution to this complex problem. We need to raise public and political support to develop the decent, child-friendly and compassionate society we should be. If not, with all our resources, are we not being neglectful ourselves?  

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

28. April 2010 by student.

Whenever affirmative action is looked at, the consensus is that it only affects minorities such as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. But in reality, this issue when looked upon as a whole affects everybody. Competition is something that is always going to be around. Whether it’s in academics or the work force, there’s going to be competition. Now think when one person is given an “advantage” due to his or her race or gender, others can be seen as getting a “disadvantage” due to their race or gender.

This issue will never have a universal solution. Although it cannot be traced back to a single cause, many believe that it is nothing more than the U.S. governments way of saying “sorry” to African Americans or Native Americans. Even though mistakes were made in the past, there is no real and logical way of making amends today. This would have been a great idea, say, 60 years ago. But in today’s day and age affirmative action is really what keeps the racial and gender gap going.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

28. April 2010 by student.

Homosexuals are not only denied the right of marriage, but in Florida they are they are flat out denied the right to adopt children.  We are the only state with an outright ban on gay marriage.  If a single parent is allowed to adopt then why are homosexuals deprived of this right!  In 2008 a judge in Miami ruled this law unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.  There are 130,000 children in the foster care system waiting to be adopted, and this is just in America.  Worldwide millions of children would love to be adopted by any loving parent.  The ABC comedy show, Modern Family, has a happy gay couple as two main characters. In the show the men have adopted a baby girl from Vietnam.  If this can be aired on national television without causing any sort or riot or concern, then why is our state so adamantly against gay adoption?

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

28. April 2010 by Mr. Andoscia.

All blogs and comments have been graded up to this point.

Posted in Mr. Andoscia | No Comments »

28. April 2010 by student.

The nation’s top two Defense officials called on Congress on Tuesday to end the 16-year- old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, that bans openly gay men and women from serving in the United States military.

While active duty service members are prohibited from talking about the issue, as Newschannel 7’s Alexandra Hill tells us, plenty of local former military members have an opinion.

“I was in the military. I got out when I was a first lieutenant. I was military police in the Army National Guard and I knew when I signed that contract that I was breaking a cardinal rule,” said Michael Greene, a military veteran and current President of Emerald Coast Pride.

Michael Greene is gay. He grew up in a military family, went to school in Wewa, joined the ROTC, and despite all military stigmas with his sexuality, chose to serve for seven years in our armed services in hiding.

“For me, and I think most of the service members, when that uniform goes on you’ve got a duty. You’ve got a job to do. Not once did I join the military to recruit for the LGBT community,” said Greene.

Under the military’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Greene would not have been allowed to serve. Homosexual conduct is grounds for a discharge.

Since the policy was implemented in 1993, an estimated 13,000 servicemen and servicewomen have been kicked out.

 I agree we should keep the rule because it protect our soliders from homophobic people. i do wish the soliders could be open but it’s only for their safety.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

28. April 2010 by student.

Growing up in this generation, I have been around horror movies, and as the years go on they seem to get more scary and more graphic. There has been studies out showing the side effects of these movies on younger children and how they have lasting effects. In a certain study the movie ”Tales from the Screen : Enduring Fright Reactions to Scary Media,” U-M researcher Kristen Harrison and colleague Joanne Cantor of the University of Wisconsin found that 90 percent of the study’s participants, more than 150 college students at Michigan and Wisconsin reported a media fright reaction from childhood or adolescence. From that 26 percent, these students still have effects of anxiety to this day. This is no surprise when many U-M studies shows how these effects linger even into adulthood. Horror movies such as the movie series Saw are the reasons we are having these problem in our society.  Anyone who has seen these movies can tell how they can really frighten younger children. It seems that the movie companies are always trying to one up the horror movies from the year before. It seems like the million dollor question is when is it enough?http://www.ur.umich.edu/9899/Mar29_99/9.htm  

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

28. April 2010 by student.

Have you ever received a letter from the county stating names, addresses, and miles from your house to theirs? I am referring to the list of sex offenders and sex predators in your neighborhood. Have you ever wondered what their story is? If they are really innocent or totally guilty as charged? I do believe there is some who have been shamed while there are some who are innocent. Sex offenders go through a trial of many different steps such as setting up probation, test, meetings, and moderating.  Did you know
Florida is one of the largest sex offender states? That is because every little thing you do,
Florida will list you under the sex offender list.

            First of all, we all judge a sex offender of being evil individuals. A sexual offender is a person convicted of (or who has pled no contest or guilty to) a sex offense involving a minor. Sex offenders have to and will have to register every year. The steps include wearing a tracking system on their ankle, taking night classes with groups of other offenders, and many probation meetings. A mandatory curfew is between the times of ten o’clock pm to six o’clock am. I have a really good friend who is a sex offender; she goes through so much and is not respected because she is labeled as a sex offender. She spent seven months away from her children. She is not allowed to go to any of her children’s’ school functions, pick them up from school, or go to a park with her kids. She has to wear a moderating system and sometimes she can not even go to the store without beeping. It beeps when it loses signal and tells her to go outside. Sometimes we can be outside for hours it seems like. Her crime is a crime that she can not even remember. Her crime she is accused of has no proof, just a word of mouth offense. That is why I believe there should be proof of these acts. For example; a text message to the victim, an email, or an eyewitness.  Proof can make or break a case. Without proof, I believe you should not have to live your life as an offender without proof. At least once per year, a probationer must take a polygraph examination. That may be proof of evidence, but today scientist say a polygraph is not a reliable standard way.

Second of all, Oftentimes, the public wants to know who sex offenders are—or who potential sex offenders might be—based on certain personality characteristics, demographics, or other variables, perhaps because of their understandable desire to be able to “spot” these individuals and take protective measures. In fact, for those who are operating under myths or misperceptions about sex offenders and victimization, they may even believe that all sex offenders fit a certain “profile” that makes them easily identified. For example, you might remember the myth that the typical child molester is a “dirty old man” who hangs out at a park or playground waiting to lure a child away with candy. Or that the typical rapist is a masked knife–wielding man lurking in a dark alley or hiding behind a bush waiting to jump out and grab an unsuspecting woman who is passing by. Those and other similar myths are based on the assumption that sex offenders all “look the same,” so to speak, or that they fit a certain profile. And for a variety of reasons, even some criminal justice professionals may seek to identify such a profile for sex offenders. For example, law enforcement agents may have the expectation that if there is a profile of the typical sex offender, it might be easier to identify suspects when incidents of sexual assault are reported and the perpetrators have not yet been caught. Some judges and other court actors may hope that a “sex offender profile” exists because it will make decision making easier when these cases are brought to the courts. Still others, such as some treatment providers or some supervision officers, may hold onto the belief that there is a profile of a sex offender, because it will make it simpler to treat and supervise them. Some professionals may believe that if there truly is a profile, we can identify persons who might be at risk of becoming a sex offender and therefore be able to prevent sex offenses from happening to begin with. In reality, however, the research has consistently shown that there is no such thing as a “sex offender profile.” That’s because time and time again, despite attempts to identify a finite and specific set of characteristics that fits for all sex offenders, researchers continue to find that they are a diverse and heterogeneous population. So, although the label of “sex offender” might seem to suggest that individuals who commit these crimes are all alike, that is simply not the case. In fact, because they are such a heterogeneous group, it is sometimes difficult to discern how they are uniquely different from other types of criminals or from those of us in the general public, other than the fact that they have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

28. April 2010 by student.

Texting while driving. This topic has recently been harped upon by society. People are comparing the multitasking to drunk driving. I would agree that this comparison is a fair one since so many accidents are caused by texting while driving. Lately I have been seeing commercials that are educational about the amount of danger involved and stories of people who have lost their lives over it. if you really consider the problem and put it into perspective, this is the most avoidable and unnecessary problem. People  caint wait to stop driving before the answer a text. There is so much pressure from today’s society to stay connected via you cell phone. This pressure is what drives people to complicate their safety to type something as simple as “yeah.” This is out of control and needs to get a fixed. I have heard that Georgia is approaching the passing of a new bill that will prohibit texting and driving. The bill that is in the house right now firstly prohibits teens under 18 from talking on the phone and texting while driving. It also says that adults can not text but talking is still allowed. There is $150 charge for breaking the law. A representative firmly believes that this bill, if passed, will change behavior. I hope the bill does get passed and that Florida joins the group  of 30 other states that don’t allow this carless and irresponsible habit. This law will only save lives, and keep our roads safer. No one could disagree.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

28. April 2010 by student.

Recently, smoking on campus has come into question about whether it is right or wrong. The fact that smokers don’t always stay in the designated smoking areas is one of the main arguments for banning smoking on campus. The other argument that non smokers have is that they try to avoid the designated smoking areas, when there are clearly paths around them. Students that smoke are paying the same amount of money to go to school here and should be allowed to smoke, but only in the designated areas. If they go outside of these areas, they should be fined or limited.

Posted in Social Problems | 7 Comments »

28. April 2010 by student.

“One of the oldest drugs in clinical medicine today, marijuana extracts were widely used in India and countries of the far east for thousands of years as sleeping aids, apoptotic stimulants, anti-consultants, anti-anxiety, and anti-depressant medications” (Iversen 1). According to “Cannabis Use and Dependence”; “Cannabis is derived from the cannabis sativa plant. THC is the constituent of cannabis that produces the psychoactive effects sought by recreational users.”(17) The THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)  that is being delivered to the brain via your blood stream acts on brain receptors in areas of the brain that control your motor performance, mood, and memory.  Over the past couple of years, there have been major debates on whether cannabis should be legalized or remain a banned, illegal drug. Upon doing my research for both sides, I have come across valid points and arguments on either side. Proponents of legalization, argue it will supposedly slow down or stop the “War on Drugs,” but then will lead to new consumers. For every pro, it seems there is a con to match. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was established making sellers required to have a license, but not banning cannabis altogether (“Arguments For and Against”). This led to the hearings from Harry Anslinger on the subject that the hemp plant should be banned for its violent “effect on the degenerate races.” The law was passed without a fight and there hasn’t been a reasonable cause to lift the ban yet.             Cannabis isn’t any more harmful than most other legal drugs such as tobacco or alcohol, or even coffee. There were more severe physiological addictions found by tobacco and alcohol than cannabis, along with the close to none number of mortalities from cannabis than the ever-growing number of tobacco and alcohol combined. Even if there are negative effects from getting high off smoking cannabis, legalizing it would allow regulation. When you would purchase the cannabis it would have a listing of the active and inactive ingredients, warnings, and purity levels, making any user of the drug more aware of what the cannabis actually consists of. This would prevent any “laced” cannabis with unknown active or inactive ingredients added without knowing, from being sold illegally.

All recreational drugs have some sort of harmful effects on the user. You can drink alcohol without driving, but you can’t drink and drive just as you wouldn’t smoke cannabis and drive. According to “The Science of Marijuana”; “Animal experiments have shown that THC has characteristics on the ability to maintain normal balance; movements become clumsy and at higher doses the animals maintain abnormal postures and may remain immobile for considerable periods.” (95). This means actions while driving could be slowed causing accidents. If the drug were to be legalized, it would be hard to control the use of the drug with driving. “Driving not only requires a series of motor skills, but also involves a complex series of perceptual and cognitive functions” (Iverson 95), all of which are influenced by the drug.

            Another plus for regulating this drug is that dealers now will sell to anyone, children included, but if it’s legalized for only 21 year olds and older, the number of underage users will be likely to decrease over the years. Anytime we legalize something we are risking it falling into the hands of our children. Today there are many unhealthy legal items that are prohibited from being sold to underage individuals. Adults have better judgment, responsibility and reasoning than individuals who are underage to purchase these unhealthy legal items. The use of cannabis can have serious effects on the brain.

            Morally, logically, and physically, people believe cannabis should remain illegal. Should the Federal Government really be allowed to put a drug on the market that has negative health side effects? It’s easy to believe that this is going to send the wrong message to the generations growing up that it is an acceptable drug. This drug makes people unmotivated, and an unmotivated youth now is going to cause a lot of problems later down the road. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, about 6,000 people a day used marijuana for the first time, and of these, 63.3 percent were under age 18. Which can mean that when and if the government legalizes cannabis for people over 21, as its attempted legislation has stated, it won’t suddenly decrease the number of underage users (Nightingale, “The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana”). The simple drug of cannabis could lead to heavier, unsafe drugs like cocaine and heroine, which is known as the Gateway Theory. After using cannabis for a while the users turn to the harder stuff for a more extreme “high”. Anther thing users may do to get that “high” is lace the cannabis. If the cannabis is laced you cant tell by just looking at it. In the book “Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts” it states: “In the 1950s, marijuana was said to be a gateway drug to heroin, and in the 60s, a gateway to LSD. Today marijuana is discussed primarily as a gateway to cocaine”. (33).            Another negative effect of legalization is that the easy availability to marijuana could create more new users instead of relieving the current ones of the hassle to get a hold of the drug. Companies that sell tobacco now are going to want to keep their cannabis -smoking customers like their cigarette-smoking customers by adding “harmless ingredients” in the cannabis. Creating an almost addicting ingredient in the drug will make the users need to consume it like tobacco users do. This leads to cannabis -smoking workers now available to “cannabis -smoking breaks” at work. After smoking cannabis on the job, I wouldn’t think that the employee would be at their best potential for acting responsible at work. With the use of cannabis the user experiences “mild euphoria, relaxation and perceptual alterations, including time distortion, and the intensification of experiences such eating, watching films, listening to music and engaging in sex.” (Hall and Liccardo, 38). If smoking marijuana causes you to be unmotivated and lazy, the place of work is going to suffer from this employee’s lack of desire to want to meet all the job’s requirements and tasks. There are many things to be considered if this illegal drug stays banned, just as there are many things to be put into consideration if the ban is raised.             I have looked closely at both arguments, and have come to the conclusion that legalizing cannabis wouldn’t be so bad after all. I believe that cigarette smoke is so much worse that cannabis. There are proven facts stating all the negative effects of cigarette smoke. I also think that the effects of alcohol are much worse than the effects of cannabis. When people bring this controversial issue up, both sides are always taken into consideration because there are a lot of viewpoints on each side. Yes it is unhealthy, but so is alcohol and tobacco. The conflict between the state and federal laws need to be resolved as a rising in cases and hearings regarding the laws of the possession of marijuana is being tried in states that have legalized it medicinally. There are many protests that are being done to get the option to legalize cannabis on the voting card for the next election. Whether or not it is passed, there will always be different beliefs and arguments for every American. We all have our own free will to do what we want, and if we choose to use a somewhat harmful drug, so be it.  

Works CitedLegalization of Marijuana. “Arguments For and Against Legalization of Marijuana.” Cannabis Club, 2009. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/marijuana-for-and-against.htmlMoffatt, Mike. “Should Government Legalize and Tax Marijuana?” University of Phoenix, 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009.http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/marijuana.htmNightingale, Jonathan. “The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana.” Cannabis News, 2009. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.http://www.cannabisnews.org/united-states-cannabis-news/the-case-against-legalizing-marijuana/Wohlsen, Marcus. “Pot Legalization Gains Momentum in California.” Cannabis News, 2009. Web. 1 Nov. 2009.http://www.cannabisnews.org/united-states-cannabis-news/pot-legalization-gains-momentum-in-california/

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »