In the article "Rapper among dead after shooting. fiery crash on Las Vegas Strip" by Miguel Marquez of CNN news, he talks about the catastrophe that happened on the Las Vegas Strip because of seemingly a disagreement between the rapper and other unknown people. The fact is that three people died as a result after the altercation when the rappers car collided with a taxi when he got shot.
The article includes quotes from family, some on-lookers, witnesses, Cherry Jr's. attorney and one of the detectives that is looking into the case. One quote that stood out to me from out of all of these people was from Kenneth's attorney Vicki Greco who said, " Out everyone I know in the rapping industry there is no way I would have ever, ever expected to find that he was shot on the Las Vegas strip in such an aggressive manner. He has two kids, and he didn't have a criminal record or history. He was just a good kid trying to make it and be a good father." This stood out to me because it makes me ask and wonder, then why did the killers confront and kill him and make other people die in the process if this guy had no history and was a good guy? This shows just how cruel people, humans can be.
I think that whoever made this whole thing happen, the killers with the range rover, should all be caught as soon as possible. This whole thing is just plain ridiculous. this should have never happened and the killers cost other people live as well even though I doubt it they care.
This article makes me wonder if Kenneth had something to do with the man before this little incident or if he just came out from the casino and got into a tiff with a random guy. Either way, shooting Kenneth's car, was the wrong way to go about whatever happened. Why do people think the only way to handle things is to shoot someone and just get rid of them? There are plenty of other ways to go about things without involving violence. I think if criminals and just regular people, get into their head that violence isn't the way to go, then maybe we would have less trouble for them, and the rest of us.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Big Surprise Behind Valentine's Day
In the article "Historically Incorrect Canoodling" by Stephanie Coontz, she explores the history behind Valentines Day and finds some things that may surprise some people. In the article, Coontz states, "Valentine's Day was originally created by the Roman Catholic Church as a limit on sexual passion." This for sure is not what most people would have thought.
The article includes quotes from Coontz herself, and quotes from people in that century that shows what most people thought in that time. One quotes that stood out to me from Coontz was when she greed to a point of which the church said saying, " They had a point. High Expectations of married love can lead to huge disappoints," It stood out to me because I think the statement is false. If you have the highest expectations from a marriage that means you are looking to have the best out of your marriage and a person can only want the best.
I think that Valentine's Day being a day that didn't stand for love before in the earlier centuries is pretty absurd. I mean, people should support people who are in love because they are seemingly happy together. Even if it lasts for only a little while. Love can be a beautiful thing, even if it can turn out ugly in the end. People fall in love and sometimes you can't help it. The church should have supported the marriages if they wanted what was best for the people.
This article makes me think that the Church maybe didn't want other people to marry because they were not allowed to or they fell in love once and it just didn't work out. If that was the case then why ruin other peoples experience of love? The church may believe that it was the wrong thing but what about the soldiers that wanted to get married? They work for them during the wars they should at least be able to come home to some type of happiness. Some Grown-Ups are even like that today. Maybe they should stop getting into other peoples relationships and let them do their own thing without their control. Marriage shouldn't have been banned, It should have been encouraged. To keep all of their people happy in some sort of way.
The article includes quotes from Coontz herself, and quotes from people in that century that shows what most people thought in that time. One quotes that stood out to me from Coontz was when she greed to a point of which the church said saying, " They had a point. High Expectations of married love can lead to huge disappoints," It stood out to me because I think the statement is false. If you have the highest expectations from a marriage that means you are looking to have the best out of your marriage and a person can only want the best.
I think that Valentine's Day being a day that didn't stand for love before in the earlier centuries is pretty absurd. I mean, people should support people who are in love because they are seemingly happy together. Even if it lasts for only a little while. Love can be a beautiful thing, even if it can turn out ugly in the end. People fall in love and sometimes you can't help it. The church should have supported the marriages if they wanted what was best for the people.
This article makes me think that the Church maybe didn't want other people to marry because they were not allowed to or they fell in love once and it just didn't work out. If that was the case then why ruin other peoples experience of love? The church may believe that it was the wrong thing but what about the soldiers that wanted to get married? They work for them during the wars they should at least be able to come home to some type of happiness. Some Grown-Ups are even like that today. Maybe they should stop getting into other peoples relationships and let them do their own thing without their control. Marriage shouldn't have been banned, It should have been encouraged. To keep all of their people happy in some sort of way.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Gender Based Pricing: Is it Fair or Not?
In the article " Is gender-based pricing fair?" written for The New York Times "upfront", Mike Durant and Jonathan Mintz each give their own opinion if gender-based pricing is fair or not. In the article Mintz states that in New York since 1998, giving different prices for services to men and women is illegal. If the action is illegal then why do some businesses do it?
The article includes quotes from both Mike Durant and Jonathan Mintz who give their opinion on gender based pricing. Both Durant and Mintz use data to support their points. One quotes that stood out to me from Durant who said, "Sometimes it's completely fair to charge men and women different prices." this stood out to me because i agree with this statement because it is true. Men and Women may be getting the same services but they aren't all exactly the same. Different ways of distributing can call for different prices. Though, only sometimes when it is necessary as Durant said.
I think that gender-based pricing is not really a big deal and that the government should not be getting involved. I understand the business's reason behind different pricing because for different genders, services are different as well. Many people may disagree with me but it is the truth and people may have to accept it one way or the other. If u don't like the prices in a business, just take your business elsewhere.
This article reminds me of when women were fighting for the right to vote. Both men and women had their own views and arguments on why the other was wrong about their view. Men thought that women should not vote due to them "not having a mans wit" and that they should keep their power status. While women thought they should have the right to vote because they felt inferior and wanted to be an equal citizens of America just as the men. Both sides have an opinion and both sides are wrong and right in ways. You cant really get a handle on which side is right...though in this case women won.
The article includes quotes from both Mike Durant and Jonathan Mintz who give their opinion on gender based pricing. Both Durant and Mintz use data to support their points. One quotes that stood out to me from Durant who said, "Sometimes it's completely fair to charge men and women different prices." this stood out to me because i agree with this statement because it is true. Men and Women may be getting the same services but they aren't all exactly the same. Different ways of distributing can call for different prices. Though, only sometimes when it is necessary as Durant said.
I think that gender-based pricing is not really a big deal and that the government should not be getting involved. I understand the business's reason behind different pricing because for different genders, services are different as well. Many people may disagree with me but it is the truth and people may have to accept it one way or the other. If u don't like the prices in a business, just take your business elsewhere.
This article reminds me of when women were fighting for the right to vote. Both men and women had their own views and arguments on why the other was wrong about their view. Men thought that women should not vote due to them "not having a mans wit" and that they should keep their power status. While women thought they should have the right to vote because they felt inferior and wanted to be an equal citizens of America just as the men. Both sides have an opinion and both sides are wrong and right in ways. You cant really get a handle on which side is right...though in this case women won.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Should Lance Armstrong get another chance?
In the article "Give Lance another chance?" many proclaimed columnists for newspapers and magazines speak out on their views of Lance Armstrong's admission to doping before the races and whether he should get another chance or not. Lance Armstrong has already been banned from professional cycling for life and he was stripped of his seven Tour de France trophies.
The article includes opinions and quotes from columnists, from a range of different magazines and newspapers. One opinion that stood out to me from all the rest was when Frida Ghitis columnist for The Miami Herald, said " He should make a new career of speaking out about the cost of living a lie." It stood out to me because I think, I'm not sure, that she was being serious when she said that. Though I completely agree with her about it. To make it up to everyone he should teach other people about how living a lie can affect your life in the worst way in the end.
I think that the whole situation was blown out of proportion. Yes he did cheat but why end his career and ban him from cycling for the rest of his life because of that? There are probably more than half of the athletes out there doing the same thing. You can't fire and ban all of though can you? Or else there would be no entertainment or drama left in the nation to gossip about. So I say at least let him keep cycling because that's what he really loves and give him a second chance to redeem himself.
This article makes me think that people love to gossip over the most foolish things and then put all their attention onto that. Yes he was cheating, and yes and it was for more than a decade. Though like I said before, most of the athletes out here are probably using performance-enhancing pills to win but nobody has figured it out yet. I say give Lance another chance! People should start showing some sympathy. He did it for you guys, for the fans. He wanted to make them proud.
The article includes opinions and quotes from columnists, from a range of different magazines and newspapers. One opinion that stood out to me from all the rest was when Frida Ghitis columnist for The Miami Herald, said " He should make a new career of speaking out about the cost of living a lie." It stood out to me because I think, I'm not sure, that she was being serious when she said that. Though I completely agree with her about it. To make it up to everyone he should teach other people about how living a lie can affect your life in the worst way in the end.
I think that the whole situation was blown out of proportion. Yes he did cheat but why end his career and ban him from cycling for the rest of his life because of that? There are probably more than half of the athletes out there doing the same thing. You can't fire and ban all of though can you? Or else there would be no entertainment or drama left in the nation to gossip about. So I say at least let him keep cycling because that's what he really loves and give him a second chance to redeem himself.
This article makes me think that people love to gossip over the most foolish things and then put all their attention onto that. Yes he was cheating, and yes and it was for more than a decade. Though like I said before, most of the athletes out here are probably using performance-enhancing pills to win but nobody has figured it out yet. I say give Lance another chance! People should start showing some sympathy. He did it for you guys, for the fans. He wanted to make them proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)