No Child Left Behind

I have currently re-evaluated my research topic and have now come to the conclusion that I will be writing about the No child left behind act and how it isn't working properly. Not all children are the same, so not all children will learn the same. Some children carry disabilities, some children cannot learn without hands on activities, there are so many different variables the government did not think about during the conversation and passing of this act. Some people think this act is the greatest thing to happen, the current generation of children will be proficient in math and reading but the structure of the act is working against the children instead of with the children, something needs to be changed in order for the children to receive the best education and individually be able to understand the concepts they will need in order to be successful in life. The government has failed to look into the children with disabilities and even the children with undiscovered disabilities.

When talking about this topic I think I can relate this to Plato’s dialogical approach. In the book it states that Plato believed that as humans we do not see absolute truth directly, but only glean indirect images, glimpses, or shadows of the truth. I believe that when this act was being talked about it sounded like a good idea and something that should be passed and taken seriously in the education system but I believe that it was not thoroughly thought through enough and is now creating more problems for us as a society than it should have ever made.

Another approach that stuck out to me in the book was the Fisher’s narrative approach. The book states humans are as much valuing as they are reasoning animals. In other words we make decisions based on arguments and evidence. The act has passed because the arguments and evidence that backed it up but now if we took it to court and re-evaluated it would it pass the same questions asked years ago when this was being talked about. The government obviously thought this would have taken a good impact on society but instead has hurt some of us and has made education unequal. Education discriminates against certain groups of people and it has become unfair.

Same Love

The controversial topic I would like to elaborate on is same sex marriage. Some people are for a change and the equality of people and other people believe it is wrong to marry a couple of the same sex, this is not a new issue in our society but rather an ongoing issue that needs to be talked about and discussed with an open mind. “While societies that prohibit same-sex marriage equally permit individual heterosexuals and homosexuals to marry one adult of the opposite sex, same-sex couples in such societies are denied an important right that opposite-sex couples enjoy” (Williams). Only thirteen states have legal same-sex marriage. Those states include California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Delaware, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Maryland and Washington. That may sound like quite a few as I list them out but in reality it is not compared to the thirty five states that have ban same-sex marriage whether it was through a constitutional amendment or a state law. The only state part of the United States of America that has no law banning or legalizing same-sex marriage is New Mexico. Same-sex marriage discussion arouse first around 1993 when Hawaii ruled laws against same-sex marriage violated people’s rights and was very discriminatory. On September 21^st, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which ban “federal recognition of same-sex marriage and defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” (CNN). Because of that most states now only recognize marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Outside of the United States of America only sixteen other countries have specific laws allowing same-sex marriage.  Almost a decade after Bill Clinton’s statement on February 24, 2004, President George W. Bush publicly spoke about his support towards banning same-sex marriage. As you all can tell same-sex marriage is something that is currently an ongoing issue, on the rise to a equal solution. How can one person tell another person what the norm is and what is acceptable for society and for an individual. The public is involved in this issue many ways. Many people either support or oppose this topic and everyone’s opinion has an impact, the opposing side makes up for the majority of people in society but for what reason. Some people may have religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, some people are just ignorant towards the topic and there are the people that have no negative or positive input on the topic. As stated the people with the issues have spoken up and loudly, there are laws in place to control ‘love’, what sense does that make. Some fight banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but yet there are laws being put in place and nothing is being done to grow as a society. People seem to be stuck in their old ways, when will people be open to equality and peace for everyone. We, in the USA, are Americans and deserve the freedom stated in the constitution. Who are you to put a label on love?

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=ade829d8-27b5-4037-b160-1f393681f386%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=67449654 

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marriage-fast-facts/ 

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

Piracy v. Paid music

Something that is brought up quite often is whether or not music should be paid for or available for anyone to download. Freely people are becoming more familiar with ways around policies and laws just to get their hands on the mainstream music they want to obtain, and not many people are getting caught and penalized for it.

Now as many of us know we have Copyright laws, so first and foremost speaking from an ethically view point, we should abide by the law. People downloading off the internet illegally are a real concern to entertainers and the industry as a whole. So many people are doing it the industry is losing money. To put this in perspective, there is "12.5 billion dollars in economic losses each year due to piracy in the music industry (go-gulf.com)." But it is said that about 95% of music that people obtain is downloaded online illegally. The statistics show that the industry is suffering from piracy. Now there’s obviously more than one way to obtain music, maybe your friend downloaded it online and wants to share it with you. That’s called peer-to-peer (p2p) filing sharing. When the first P2P software emerged in 1999, “music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion (riaa.com).”

To really make you think a little more let me share this with you, along with the 12.5 billion dollars in losses “71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes (ipi.org).” So downloading music might seem harmless but in the big picture there really is a huge impact on our society, who would have thought?

Now there’s always an opposing side to a public argument, there are people that believe downloading music should be legal. We the people should have freedom to obtain music whenever we want, some might say. “This is the internet age. Once content goes up, it's free for everyone...Just the way it goes. It's not an argument of ethics, but of availability (debate.org).” This point of view talks about availability and how accessible music is. There’s hundreds if not thousands of sites that file share and allow people to obtain this “illegal” music. So if there’s laws about music piracy, why are there so many ways around it? If it was really that big of an issue wouldn’t you think someone would step in and try to fix the problem?

Works Cited

"Online Piracy in Numbers - Facts and Statistics [Infographic]." Web Design Dubai Dubai Web Design and Web Application Development Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

 

"Should Downloading Music Be Legal?" The Premier Online Debate Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

 

"The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy IPI Issues Institute for Policy Innovation." The True Cost of Sound Recording Piracy to the U.S. Economy IPI Issues Institute for Policy Innovation. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

 

"Writing Report Default." Http://www.riaa.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

Violation of Persuasive Ethics

I picked a Reebok advertisement of the internet as a violation of persuasive ethics. The ad reads cheat on your girlfriend, not on your workout. I believe this ad is offensive to woman, almost in a demeaning sense. It’s stating that it’s except-able for men to treat women like the dirt they walk on.  This ad is definitely directed towards men, but more specifically men that are physically active and workout with their brand. To me this ad is expressing men as a more powerful human than a woman. I also believe this ad is expressing to men that it’s except-able for them to be dirty and sneak around with women. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand why they made the ad and what their true intentions might have been but ethically speaking I do not believe this ad is properly displayed the way they thought it would be. This ad makes Reebok look as if they are approving men to cheat on their significant other. The ad is advertising a brand obviously about being active but the route they took could be frowned upon. In the textbook on Page 56 under the Ethical Standards for Commercial Advertising it talks about advertisers not agreeing on any one set of ethical standards. They also talk about Harold Williams and his saying about what is legal may not be ethical or honest but it’s legal.  This ad may have been one hundred percent legal to publish and associate through the Reebok brand but I do not believe this ad is ethical or honest for the reason’s stated.  Later on in the book under the same subtitle the textbook talks about associations avoiding statements, suggestions, or pictures offensive to public decency or to minority segments of the population. This ad is defiantly something Reebok should have looked at, laughed at, and thrown out in the board room. I believe Reebok could have advertised there brand much differently and associated themselves with a different type of ethical perspective. I did some further research and I found out that Reebok apologized to the public about the ad that was put out stating they took the ads done as soon as they were aware of them, Reebok also including an apology about the message, stating that Reebok did not support cheating. Coming from a Public Relations view point this company is not going about their business properly. The slogan on the ad was unethical, their apology was very dishonest. Reebok lost a lot of respect due to this, and now that I am aware of this ad it makes me double think my clothing standards and what research I should be doing on certain companies. Making the right choice is not a hard thing to do, we are taught this when we are children. We learn the difference between right and wrong, Companies need to start thinking with their heads and remembering what their mother and father would want them to do. Be honest, and ethical.   

Link to ad: https://www.google.com/search?q=reebok+cheat+on+your+girlfriend&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yrsuUuGoCLO84APAtYHYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=665#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=__2FsNhwnGU_WM%3A%3Bt4em-xF9wZjAmM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblogs.ubc.ca%252Ftroyholmes%252Ffiles%252F2013%252F01%252Fcheat.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblogs.ubc.ca%252Ftroyholmes%252F2013%252F01%252F21%252Freebok-and-its-big-mistake%252F%3B468%3B512