28. July 2010 by student.

Texting for some peope can be very expensive, but it’s understandable why people find it useful. Texting allows people to “say” things when they can’t talk- while the advantages of this are obvious we are saying things we probably shouldn’t say, to people we probably shouldn’t say it to and at the time should probably be doing something else. People-teens in particular- are even texting and driving, giving rise to car accidents because of this distarction. (Oprah Winfrey has been raising awareness on thisissue through her “No Phone Zone” campaign.

NBC News has reported that about 1/3 of teens send more than 100 texts per day-and this is the primaryway that teens communicate (via phone calls, texting, emails, personally, and social networking). Why is texting so popular? Is it because it makes it seem as though we are really communicating even when we are not? A text message can give false reality or an illusion that we’re communicating even when we are not.

I personally wonder why someone would send me a text rather than calling or even visiting. Visits may not be as convenient or sometimes even appropriate as other ways of communication, but given that texts are inconvenient to type (for some people) and that there is only a percentage limit to which you can type, a text message provides a limited form of communication. It kind of makes sense when you think that texts are technically a “short message service” and not full conversation. Among other means of communication, texts are fine but if used to often it gives the appearance of communication and by nature unable to support a essential conversation. Texts can’t convey emotion to the extent that an audible voice can which is why sensitive conversations are not suitable for this device. When you think about how often people are texting while attending to other tasks, how engaged can they really be with the person they are texting or with the people around them?

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 2 Comments »

28. July 2010 by student.

Spanking has been one of many controversial discipline methods for the past ten years or more. Twenty years ago spanking a child was never an issue. It was the form of discipline used when the first few warnings didn’t work. Twenty years later by many it’s considered abuse. Every parent should have the right to discipline their child as they see fit (to an extent), so why is it that people think when you spanki your child you’re abusing them? One one side of this debate there are parents who believe it’s okay to spank their children & on the other side their are those who think a child should not be spanked because it’s abuse. In between are the parent’s who believe spanking should be used in certain instances (such as running in the street). The American National College of Pediatrics stated, “Spankinh is oksy when used properly.” So what’s the problem?

The problem is that many parents have gotten out of control when it comes to disciplining their children so much to the point that the government has to tell us how we are “allowed” to discipline our kids. For example The Baby Grace tragedy that occurred in 2007 where a 2yr old toddler was beaten to death because her stepfather was trying to teach her manners. Because of incidents like this, The Department of Children and Families (our child welfare system) has the right to remove children who are in determined to be in imminent danger.

According to the Florida Status (civil code) 415.503, harm to a child’s health or welfare can occur when the parent or any person responsible for that child inflicts, or allows to be inflicted upon the child’s physical, mental, or emotional injury. Factors that must be considered in evaluating any injury to name a few are: prior history of injury, location of injury, multiplicity, and type of trauma. Such injuries include but are not limited to “willful acts” that produce the following injuries. Sprains, dislocations, cartilage damage, bone or skull fractures, burns or scalding, intra cranial hemorrhage or injury to other internal organs suffocation or drowning.

Anyone can listen or visualize this, willingly admit that those definitions are indeed abuse and decipher the difference between that and spanking. Webster’s dictionary of spanking is to hit on the buttocks with an open hand and in my opinion, a nice wooden spoon will do the trick. Overall, spanking depends on how it is applied and when it is being administered in a reasonable manner is not abuse. So why then is it that when you spank your child it’s considered abuse? Because some parent’s are really out of control and abuse their children with the intent of harm. That is child abuse however, it does not justify doing away with spanking children if it is done properly and for the right reasons.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 4 Comments »

28. July 2010 by student.

Many people ask, “What causes foreclosures?”  First the economy and jobless rate-people are losing more and more jobs to overseas. Also if we are behind on insurance or mortgage payments, we can bet that we will be a candidate for foreclosure. There are other ways to get in debt such as back child support, and not paying your bills on time. It is very easy to slip into the black hole of financial troubles and it can be extremely difficult to dig the way up and out of it. People need to stay informed and understand what causes home foreclosures. A determination to live within your means is the surest way to prevent financial trouble. We can sometimes do something to earn a little extra income, but it is more important to control your spending. It helps if we make a budget and stick to it. Start a savings account, paying something into it each pay period and don’t touch it unless you absolutely need to. Pay attention to financial responsibilities, wasting money on things  wanted rather than things needed. Using common sense when it comes to our bills and finances will help us stay out of the red and hence out of a home foreclosure.  

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 2 Comments »

28. July 2010 by student.

Binge drinking has become a major public health issue. It is an ever-growing problem as more adults and adolescents take part in it and social groups have embraced it as a common drinking habit. Bar owners severely influence this with their ‘all-you-can-drink’ deals and ‘2-4-1’s’. Inventions such as the beer bong and beer luge, and drinking games such as beer pong, and flippy cup encourage this practice and give it an appealing “fun factor” to draw more people in to participate.

Statistics show that:
* Binge drinking is most common between ages 18 and 22.
* 42% of college students report binge drinking.
* One in five college students is a frequent (weekly) binge drinker.
* Half of all students who binge drink do so more than once a week.
* Two-thirds of alcohol consumed by college students is consumed by binge drinkers.
* 60% of all problems with the police on college campuses (such as injuries, vandalism, etc.)         involve binge drinkers.

Here are some proposed ways that our society deal with this problem:
* Reduce access to alcohol on college campus by having fewer stores selling alcohol nearby.
* Education by high schools and colleges about the dangers of binge drinking.
* Physician screening, counseling, and referral for treatment of alcohol problems.

Having fewer stores selling alcohol in the area of college campus is stupid. If a store closes, people aren’t going to think to themselves, “That sucks,….I guess I’ll have to stop drinking now.” They are going to go to the few stores left in the area. If there are 10 stores in the area and 5 close, that means business doubles for the other five. Education on the dangers of binge drinking are going to have the same results as education on smoking. I do not see this being effective. Physician screening - who actually listens to their physician? Counseling and treatment is, at a very small percentage, effective. Especially with the relapse rate being at, according to relapseprevention.org, approximately 90%. The majority of relapses are triggered by three situations: anger/frustration, temptation, and social pressure. These methods do not prove fruitful in the big picture of things.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, binge drinkers are 14 times more likely to drive drunk than non-binge drinkers and approximately 1700 college students die each year from binge drinking related deaths. We need to quit promoting this as an acceptable way of drinking in our society.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

28. July 2010 by student.

U.S. Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett helped to end, at least in theory, the practice of bible and prayer recitation in the public schools. Since then, that legal case and the woman behind it, Madalyn Murray, have been blamed for rising teen pregnancy rates, crime, drug use, violence and youth-related problems. But what social problems does prayer in school really effect? One side wants religious freedom and the other side wants freedom from religion, which is in fact, freedom OF religion. Since 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court has quoted a separation between church and state. Public schools are state-funded which poses a conflict of interest. Schools are supposed to be institutions of teaching in areas of science, math, and history.

According to American Atheists, public schools must remain “religion free zones.” School administrators and teachers have no business in promoting religious beliefs or ceremonies; such a practice violates the basic liberties of millions of school children (and parents) who have no religious ideology. And official prayer in schools also ignores the growing pluralism in American culture over which religion is “right.”

A public school would not be able to simply just pick a religion and invoke the prayers into the curriculum. It wold violate the rights of all students who were of a different affiliation or of none at all.

Take a look at what a prayer actually is. “The wording is usually arranged in such a way as to express unworthiness, emptiness, or being lost. One must also willingly submit to the idea that the uncertainties of life are so overwhelming, so devastating, that the need for assistance from this imaginary being twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week is positively and absolutely necessary. The simple act of existence is in itself dependent on this being’s willful and conscious intent,” states Ronald J. Barrier, American Atheists National Media Coordinator.

Prayers also consist of a fair amount of pre-request flattery. This flattery consists of demonstrating one’s willing servitude to this being, its majesty, power, and control - that we are in debt to this being for the simple act of breathing. Following this disgusting display of self-debasement is the usual request for guidance, inspiration, and the direct involvement of this being in the supplicant’s personal situation or its intervention in someone else’s personal life according to the preferences of the supplicant.

Some of us do not want our kids to feel like they are guilty for having a life. Some people make it seem that if public schools do not have prayer, that all religion will be lost. Teach religion at home. Take your kids to church or Sunday school and have them learn there. There are other, less objectionable and less controversial ways to get religion to your kids.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

27. July 2010 by student.

Capital punishment was first suspended in 1972 through 1976. Since 1976, there have been 1,221 executions. Opponents claim that its is unnecessary, barbaric, that it cheapens life and puts the government on the same moral level as the criminals. But the arguments that the advocates make, sound more beneficial to society. According to American Justice, they argue that it deters crime, is a good tool for prosecutors, it improves the community by making sure that convicted criminals do not offend again, provides closure to surviving victims or loved ones, and is a just penalty for their crime.

Information gathered from the Gallup Poll and CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll, for a person convicted of murder, 65% of society is in favor of capital punishment, while 31% oppose and 5% are unsure. If they had a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment, 53% in favor of death penalty, while 46% chose life in prison and 2% were unsure. Another argument that gets brought up is whether or not it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 26% said yes it is and 73% said no, it is not cruel and unusual punishment.

It is just as surprising as it is repulsive that those lousy, degenerate, low-life murderers have advocates in our society. We have an average of over fifteen thousand murders per year. That makes an average of 510,000 murders in the 34 years since capital punishment was reinstated with only 1,221 executions. (0.23%) This is proof that executions are reserved for the worst of the worst. So for less than a quarter of a percent, a sick, degenerate fraction of society raises a louder voice about a thousand murderers being killed than over 510,000 victims in the same damn time frame.

“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”- John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

27. July 2010 by student.

The legalization of marijuana has been a hot topic since it was first outlawed in California in 1913. It is very hard to come to an educated conclusion as it seems the studies, both for and against, are relatively equal. If you speak to any user, they want it legalized, If you talk with someone who doesn’t, they are either against it or could care less. The opposing side claims physical health risks such as respiratory damage, increased risk of lung cancer, increased heart rate, reproductive damage in both sexes and immunosuppression. They also sate psychological risks such as paranoia, emotional disorders, increased risk of schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders, memory loss, increased tolerance to intoxication, addiction to marijuana and other drugs, loss of ability to concentrate and loss of inhibition. Research has found limited clinical value in one compound of its FDA approved form, not in its smoked or raw form. Many other medicines have been proven more effective and just as safe. According to the Drug Free American Foundation, “The medical excuse marijuana movement has become a device used by special interest groups to exploit the sick and dying and well-meaning voters for their own purposes.” I agree with this statement. Every single person I have ever known to back up their use with medical studies of its benefits, has never had any medical ailment in regards to what marijuana is studied for. If marijuana was approved soley for medicinal use, every person I know would still be breaking the law and they would still not be able to legally buy or use it. Socially, its acceptance varies from region to region. I have live in the Midwest and marijuana use seems to be more controlled, as is drinking. It doesn’t seem as blatant as I have found it to be here in Florida, where binge drinking and copious amounts of marijuana is a normalcy. Here, it appears to be fused into the culture. I believe with the accessibility and abundance with marijuana that the argument should me made first to decriminalize it, before worrying about legalizing it. At least as a stepping stone. Eventually, it should be regulated just like alcohol. DUI’s already include drugs. Companies would still be able to test an employee for drugs and alcohol. People will still make their own choice of whether or not to use.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 3 Comments »

27. July 2010 by student.

Self proclaimed “Nerds” only have 2 holiday weekends a year. One is E3, the other is Comic Con. Unless you just recently moved under a rock, you have heard about Comic Con at least once in the last week or so. It started in 1970, in San Diego, CA - a 4 day weekend showcasing all things nerdy, and geeky alike: Comic Books, Sci Fi movies/television shows, and more recently horror, anime, video games, collectible toys and (trading) cards, and even web comics and fantasy novels. All things most people with a life know little about.

The “problem” is that “The mainstream TV and film representation at Comic-Con has outstripped the original essence of the convention,” according to Brad Powers. People wait in line for hours at a time to see a discussion panel for Star Trek, for instance. But after waiting in the hot sun for 3 hours, they get turned away because the building has reached its capacity. Why is it full? It is full because 10 thousand people descended on the building because they wanted a chance to cheer for their Team Edward or Team Jacob. They wanted a chance to possibly touch their favorite Glee cast member. Twilight can get a pass - its more a romance than a Sci Fi, but whatever. Glee on the other hand - come on really? They have no place at Comic Con. Nor does, the cast of Chuck, or Zac Efron pushing his new Love story movie, or the Salt crew members to name a few.

But, the power and money of the highest strata say otherwise. If there is a place where they can potentially make money, albeit indirectly by simply promoting an upcoming product - they will exploit it by any and all means necessary, to the best of their abilities. Think about it: If you could do anything you wanted just because you have the means, would you? The majority of society would. Especially when it comes to peddling a product you have money invested in. Get your product known so the populace will do their job and make you money. Seems harmless enough.. In fact the only harm it causes is a little nerd-rage, and people boycotting a 40 year old tradition. No harm, no foul - right?

As Karl Marx said, “The writer must earn money in order to be able to live and to write, but he must by no means live and write for the purpose of making money.” He was without a doubt a brilliant man - if only he could see how capitalistic (and intuitive) the writer has become.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

27. July 2010 by student.

Am I the only one that has ever thought about how the definition of my race and ethnicity differs from the definitions the government uses? The government defines race as White, Africaan American (or black), American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian while the ethnicity area is simply Hispanic or not.

When I filledout my census form, I noticed that the racial categories in the questionaire reflect a “social definition” of race noticed in this country that does not define it biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. People may choose to put more than one race to indicate their racial mixture such as “Puerto Rican and Black.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race. Scientific definitions of race according to the American Anthropological Association’s (AAA) statement on race. The AAA points out the difficulties in gaining any clear definition of race due to the lack of clarity as to what we are attempting to measure. Scientifically, there is no physical or geographic sense of what race is.

Is it important to notice the disparities between the govermental and scientific definition’s? If science says race as a concept is not useful for describing humans, why does the government do it? Then I learned it all boils down to the economics and politics of categorizing people. Keeping track of people in different categories, whatever they might be, helps to know more about our society.

What does it mean then that our system’s definitions of race and ethnicity vary so much? Are they even useful at all since they may not even match up with what people use? If people fill out the forms as accurately as possible, then the data the government collects can be used as our constitution demands: to assign political representation and goverment programs accordingly to serve the people. If people are not aware what the categories mean or can’t fill them out correctly then what is the use of the data?

It’s amazing to me that although science says race is a problematic concept to define, people hold dearly to their racial and ethnic categories of identity. Thomas Theorem states, “if people define situations as real, they become real in their consequences. People grow up having to fill out those forms and also claim a racial and/or ethnic identity. People participate in some cultural group that may have racial or ethnic identities, thus the concept of race becomes very real. This is especially true historically as society regards these definitions and establishess policies that either disadvantage or elevate various groups depending on racial identity. For example, the Jim Crow laws passed in the south post-slavery, and the racial steering that was used in housing markets across the country until the 1960’s.

Social scientists prefer clarity of definition rather than uncertainty. So what, therefore do these unnclear racial definitions teach us about our society?

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

27. July 2010 by student.

In our society a cell phone is became more and more important today than back then. The cell phone is so important if someone live their house and forget their phone they will go back get it. I remember long time ago people did not need a cell phone to operate, even if they did not have house phone they just use a pay phone with one quater, but now  this day people do not need a pay phone or a house phone to operate a cell phone did it all, and this device did more than a phone: we use to check our e-mail, record, listen to music, and with a cell phone we do not need a camera etc.. That the reason we do not need a pay phone or a house phone because we have a device that can do pretty much a lot.    

Posted in Mr. Andoscia, Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »