This week I had to critique one of my colleague's work, and I chose an older post from my classmate Allison Murken "What needs to happen?"
In her post she talks about sex education in schools, which has been a very popular subject between a lot of my classmates. I have read several opinions on my post about teen sex education and have seen several comments on my other colleagues articles. Something that stands out from Allison's is that she talks about her personal experience at her school and makes a very good point stating "We were not taught about our bodies, or our options, but only that with sex came with deadly diseases that we were sure to get" Reasons like those are why I believe abstinence should be taught! "Sex Ed" classes lose focus on teaching young adults about their bodies and the changes they go through, instead focus on just STD's. Almost as if they are trying to scare off young adults from having sex by telling them that they will get a disease. Allison said "I think all schools should implement the abstinence plus program" which she says would also teach about contraceptives and sexually transmitted disease. Although i believe only abstinence should be taught, the abstinence-plus program sounds informing also. Altogether she wrote a very good, organized, informational article.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Critique*
This week I read one of my colleagues work by Eloisa, Teaching Abstinence "Plus"? In her blog post she wrote about sex education in schools which is a topic that i recently posted about. I can relate to the things she's saying and our opinions are somewhat alike. Her and I both agree that talking to young adults about condoms and birth control may promote the idea that it is okay to have sex because they have access to contraception. In our articles we also both brought up the fact that educating kids about sex could be bad and it could be good, it goes both ways. We both point out that kids are very exposed to sex through the media; television, radio, advertisements..etc. One thing I don't completely support is in her post is when she introduced the fact that it's okay to teach 12 year old girls about sex and birth control as long as their parents are okay with it. I think that age is WAY too young! Another difference of ours is that in my article I state that I think solely abstinence should be taught, instead of the availability of condoms and birth control.
Her ending statement concludes that shes believes sex education should be taught to a certain extent, which I totally agree with! It should be taught in Texas schools but not over the top, all that is needed are the basics. Overall Her and I both have a lot of similar points in our articles. I think her article was organized, well written, and made her opinion clear.
Her ending statement concludes that shes believes sex education should be taught to a certain extent, which I totally agree with! It should be taught in Texas schools but not over the top, all that is needed are the basics. Overall Her and I both have a lot of similar points in our articles. I think her article was organized, well written, and made her opinion clear.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Teen Sex Education Debate
After reading a commentary from the Austin American Statesman, the topic of sex education has me questioning if it should or should not be taught in Texas schools.
In the United States, some states such as Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Kansas, are required to teach their students about HIV/STD's and sex education. However, in Texas, schools are not required to teach a sex education class unless the school district chooses too. If they do choose too offer sex ed classes, they are required to teach abstinence.
The commentary I read said that The National Center for Health Statistics had did a study basically saying that since the late 1980's there has been a decline in teens how have been sexually active, dropping from 51% of females to 43% of females. For boys it dropped from 60% to 42%. Apparently there has also been more usage of contraception since the 1988's. "..during the past 20 years, we have simultaneously seen a lower rate of teens having sex"
This just sounds crazy too me! Because if anything i would say within the past 20 years population has sky rocketed! I think the birth rate is ridiculous, not to mention the fact that most of these babies are coming from young females. This commentary also states both sides to the argument.. Discussing contraception promotes the use of it and on the other hand if we don't teach about contraception, more teens won't use it. Personally I do believe that talking about using condoms and getting birth control are definitely promoting sex. I see all these funny Trojan commercials, sex sells. What are those commercials really promoting? I think contraception companies are advertised in a very wrong way. Every visit to plan parenthood the employees are like "DO YOU WANT SOME FREE CONDOMS?" Sex education to me is being introduced in such a way that I think it makes it seem okay to have sex young. I believe in Texas sex education should be required, but solely informing of Abstinence. It's common sense to know what is going to happen if you don't protect yourself, but all these happy ass looking condom commericals, all these spunky plan parenthood workers handing out condoms left and right... just are not promoting anything positive.
I also recently read that as of October 1, 2011 in order for a woman to have an abortion she must first have two visits to the abortion clinic, one visit consisting of an ultra-sound. Bravo Texas!
I'm seeing babies having babies, I think all these young girls just need abstinence education!
In the United States, some states such as Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Kansas, are required to teach their students about HIV/STD's and sex education. However, in Texas, schools are not required to teach a sex education class unless the school district chooses too. If they do choose too offer sex ed classes, they are required to teach abstinence.
The commentary I read said that The National Center for Health Statistics had did a study basically saying that since the late 1980's there has been a decline in teens how have been sexually active, dropping from 51% of females to 43% of females. For boys it dropped from 60% to 42%. Apparently there has also been more usage of contraception since the 1988's. "..during the past 20 years, we have simultaneously seen a lower rate of teens having sex"
This just sounds crazy too me! Because if anything i would say within the past 20 years population has sky rocketed! I think the birth rate is ridiculous, not to mention the fact that most of these babies are coming from young females. This commentary also states both sides to the argument.. Discussing contraception promotes the use of it and on the other hand if we don't teach about contraception, more teens won't use it. Personally I do believe that talking about using condoms and getting birth control are definitely promoting sex. I see all these funny Trojan commercials, sex sells. What are those commercials really promoting? I think contraception companies are advertised in a very wrong way. Every visit to plan parenthood the employees are like "DO YOU WANT SOME FREE CONDOMS?" Sex education to me is being introduced in such a way that I think it makes it seem okay to have sex young. I believe in Texas sex education should be required, but solely informing of Abstinence. It's common sense to know what is going to happen if you don't protect yourself, but all these happy ass looking condom commericals, all these spunky plan parenthood workers handing out condoms left and right... just are not promoting anything positive.
I also recently read that as of October 1, 2011 in order for a woman to have an abortion she must first have two visits to the abortion clinic, one visit consisting of an ultra-sound. Bravo Texas!
I'm seeing babies having babies, I think all these young girls just need abstinence education!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Texas Doctors Experiment With Care, Payment Models
This past week I read an article from the Texas Tribune, "Texas Doctors Experiment With Care, Payment Models" In a suburb of Dallas, Tx there is a medical practice that is referred to as "The Galleria of Health Clinics." It offers medical care for a variety of needs including, pediatric care, diabetic care, OB/GYN, Dietitian, Cardiology, Chiropractic care, and much more. "..patients receive a year’s worth of wellness exams in a single visit, get their e-mails answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and have their mammogram or MRI results logged into their electronic medical record by the time they pull out of the parking lot."
This place sounds AMAZING, who could ask for anything more? It's like Health Care heaven! Why don't we have practices like these all across America? Answer is, Health Care Spending. By 2020 our country's medical expenses are believe to be around $4.6 trillion dollars, putting us deeper and deeper into the hole. Our country's health care spending's are ridiculous. In my opinion, like many others, we are where we are today because of medicaid being given to non-citizens. The government throws out billions of dollars to people who are in our country illegally, instead of giving it to citizens who were born here that need medical attention. It is unbelievably hard and expensive for a U.S. citizen to get medical insurance yet it is so easy for an immigrant to get free medical care. Now I LOVE my Mexicans, that's my culture, but I work at a Mexican restaurant and I mean DAMN. All my co-workers get Lone Star, WIC, Medicaid, you name it. Meanwhile I'm over here working super hard to pay my bills? If the Government stopped handing out so much money to non-citizens, we wouldn't be trillions short, and we would be able to have necessary places like this practice all over. The doctors at Kelsey-Seybold came to a rather smart solution to make the cost reasonable for patients, and that is by getting the groups of family physicians to share patients medical information electronically. It makes visits cheaper by being able to solely go to one place where you can be treated for any need. People don't understand how much easier and cheaper places like this could make our country's health spending's lower. However, we can't have places like this because the Government hands.out.too.much.M O N E Y
This place sounds AMAZING, who could ask for anything more? It's like Health Care heaven! Why don't we have practices like these all across America? Answer is, Health Care Spending. By 2020 our country's medical expenses are believe to be around $4.6 trillion dollars, putting us deeper and deeper into the hole. Our country's health care spending's are ridiculous. In my opinion, like many others, we are where we are today because of medicaid being given to non-citizens. The government throws out billions of dollars to people who are in our country illegally, instead of giving it to citizens who were born here that need medical attention. It is unbelievably hard and expensive for a U.S. citizen to get medical insurance yet it is so easy for an immigrant to get free medical care. Now I LOVE my Mexicans, that's my culture, but I work at a Mexican restaurant and I mean DAMN. All my co-workers get Lone Star, WIC, Medicaid, you name it. Meanwhile I'm over here working super hard to pay my bills? If the Government stopped handing out so much money to non-citizens, we wouldn't be trillions short, and we would be able to have necessary places like this practice all over. The doctors at Kelsey-Seybold came to a rather smart solution to make the cost reasonable for patients, and that is by getting the groups of family physicians to share patients medical information electronically. It makes visits cheaper by being able to solely go to one place where you can be treated for any need. People don't understand how much easier and cheaper places like this could make our country's health spending's lower. However, we can't have places like this because the Government hands.out.too.much.M O N E Y
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Booing kids not becoming of adults
I vividly remember watching the BCS bowl in January 2010, i also VIVIDLY remember losing to Alabama 37-21. Being a die-heart Texas fan, I was infuriated! That year, i noticed this freshman name Garrett Gilbert. Although that game he wasn't doing so well, I was like "Hey, he might be pretty next year." Welp, it's next year, and I'm still not impressed. I went to UT vs. Rice September 3, 2011 SO pumped up I was ready to go and watch my team eat Rice alive.. Halfway through the game I wasn't so sure we were going to take that nights win. "Take Gilbert out!!!!!!" kept coming out of mine and all the other fans mouth. A week later Texas vs. Brigham Young University had me biting my nails. Gilbert continued to disappoint me, he makes me mad.--
Now I read this Editorial from the Austin American Statesman dated Tuesday September 13, 2011. "Booing kids not becoming of adults" Basically it was saying that fans are being to harsh on the UT football players, specifically talking about Garrett Gilbert. What?
"We understand sports, in general, can be a pleasant escape from real life. But we also believe sports should not be an escape from adult behaivor."
"...It seems also to be taken for granted that adult behavior at University of Texas football games at times is beneath the level at which adults should behave." I have to disagree with these two statements, I think it goes to far to say that fans aren't acting like adults. Yelling isn't anything out of the ordinary at a football game. We have the freedom of speech and unless anyone is physically getting harmed, words are only words. I think this writer intended UT football fans to read it, maybe to tone it down. And I mean of course there are times when people get into fights, and there are times when people get to drunk, But the writer chooses to defend theirself by saying that the crowd booing Gilbert is an act of childness. It's just not a good arguement. I think the writer is forgetting that we are not talking about five year olds, we are talking about grown men who partake in a competitive sport and run over each other. The players know what is expected of them and they know the things people will say if they don't deliver. This is a dog eat dog world. Everybody gets critiqued, everybody gets judged. I just don't it is really a big deal to the players, this is football ya'll! If you can't handle the heat get out the kitchen!
Now I read this Editorial from the Austin American Statesman dated Tuesday September 13, 2011. "Booing kids not becoming of adults" Basically it was saying that fans are being to harsh on the UT football players, specifically talking about Garrett Gilbert. What?
"We understand sports, in general, can be a pleasant escape from real life. But we also believe sports should not be an escape from adult behaivor."
"...It seems also to be taken for granted that adult behavior at University of Texas football games at times is beneath the level at which adults should behave." I have to disagree with these two statements, I think it goes to far to say that fans aren't acting like adults. Yelling isn't anything out of the ordinary at a football game. We have the freedom of speech and unless anyone is physically getting harmed, words are only words. I think this writer intended UT football fans to read it, maybe to tone it down. And I mean of course there are times when people get into fights, and there are times when people get to drunk, But the writer chooses to defend theirself by saying that the crowd booing Gilbert is an act of childness. It's just not a good arguement. I think the writer is forgetting that we are not talking about five year olds, we are talking about grown men who partake in a competitive sport and run over each other. The players know what is expected of them and they know the things people will say if they don't deliver. This is a dog eat dog world. Everybody gets critiqued, everybody gets judged. I just don't it is really a big deal to the players, this is football ya'll! If you can't handle the heat get out the kitchen!
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ex drug dealer executed for killing two near Dallas
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected the appeal of a Texas death row inmate. Steven Michael Woods was sentenced to death for the 2001 murder of two people just north of Dallas. Ronald Whitehead 21, was lured into an isolated road after making a drug deal and was found dead with 6 shots to the head and slit throat. Another victim, Bethena Brosz was with Whitehead at the time of the drug deal. She was found still alive after being shot twice in the head and a slit throat, but died the following day. Woods was given the lethal injection this past Tuesday, September 13, 2011 after serving a little less than ten years. Does this bother anybody but me? Despite the brutal things he did to these people, I don't believe that we should kill a man, to prove killing is wrong. Don't get me wrong, he DEFINITELY deserves punishment.. But what better way than to just cage him for the rest of his life? I think serving a life sentence is much more appropriate than an injection that causes the "least" amount of pain. Wouldn't you rather have someone die in prison? Keyword-FREEDOM. Take his away, and it would cause a man more pain than any injection. Maybe that's just me though? My beliefs, call me crazy. I'd rather watch him rot!
Christina.........xx
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/ex-drug-dealer-executed-for-killing-2-near-1856548.html
Christina.........xx
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/ex-drug-dealer-executed-for-killing-2-near-1856548.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)