Alas, Babylon

Cooperation and sharing are the keys to survival in Alas, Babylon. The characters in the book shared many things. They shared food, transportation, and protection. Of course, they shared much more, but these are the three most important ones.

One of the things the characters shared was food. When one person or family had something, they gave a little bit to everyone in their little "community." The people that made up the "community" are as follows: Randy, Lib, Bill, Helen, Ben Franklin, Peyton, Dan Gunn, (all of which were in the same house); the Henry's: Malachaai, Preacher, Missouri, Two-Tone, and Caleb; Sam Hazzard; Florence Wecheck and Alice Cooksey. Some of the food they shared was fish (caught from the river), salt, liquor, chickens, pigs, crabs, armadillos, and water. Everybody caught fish, so that pretty much explains itself. They all shared salt. When their original salt rations ran out, Dan Gunn remembered that Helen read him Randy's Grandfather's diary and it talked about an island made of salt. Then Randy, Sam Hazzard and a few others went and got the salt. They also caught crabs at the salt island. When the Henrys' sugar can sprouted, they made moon shine and that was used for sterilizing wounds for Dan's medical practices, and they also traded it for other things. Chickens and pigs were donated by the Henry's. They were sort of like farmers so they had chickens and pigs for eggs and meat. When everything else failed, Ben Franklin and Caleb went hunting and killed armadillos. They knew that the armadillos were good for eating because they read about them in books. Randy had a well/spring. That is how they got their water. They used pipes and hooked it up to everyone else's houses in the "community."

The second thing they shared was transportation. They drained all the gas from everyone's car and then put it in the one that used the least amount of gasoline. Then when gas was completely gone, they made sailboats. Alice and Florence made them by sewing material together and then Sam Hazzard hooked them on to the boats already there.

And last but not least, they shared the responsibility of protection. They all took a night to watch the house and make sure nothing was stolen and no one was hurt. Around the end, Randy got a bunch of people together and formed, what they in the book called, Bragg's Troop. Bragg's Troop made sure everyone was safe and that the highwaymen didn't hurt them. They also shared their guns. Randy had many guns, so Ben Franklin, Dan Gunn, and Randy himself all got one.

Cooperation and sharing are the keys to survival in Alas, Babylon. They shared many things including the three most important: food, transportation, and protection. If they hadn't pulled together in their times of trouble, they probably would not have made it.

Censoring Music: Is It Right or Wrong?

Many young people today listen to Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, and the Backstreet Boys. But, some people believe that those kinds of singers are too bubbly, so they listen to a more extreme type of music, called heavy metal. That type of music includes artists such as Eminem, Ice Cube, 2 Live Crew, and Nine Inch Nails. To the younger music audience, these types of music are acceptable, but to the parents of these young listeners, these types of music are unacceptable. Thus, groups like the Parents Music Research Center (PMRC), founded by Tipper Gore and Susan Baker, try to pass laws that state that people under certain ages cannot listen to certain types of music, namely heavy metal.

According to Edward J. Volz, censoring music became very popular during the 1950s. One example of music censorship, brought up by Robert W Butler, Timothy Finn, and Derek Donovan, is when radio stations took Wake Up Little Susie by the Everly Brothers off the air because they thought the song implied that the teenagers had sex. The lyrics to the song say, "The movie wasn't so hot/It didn't have much of a plot/We fell asleep/..." As one can plainly see, the song lyrics do not imply that the two teenagers had sex. In the year 2003, the music lyrics talk about killing people and date rape. Thus, the recording artists have gone from singing about two teenagers falling asleep together to people singing about date rape and murder. However, censoring music is not as good as once thought because each individual person interprets each piece of music differently. Therefore, music censorship should be banned regardless of the music's content.

One might wonder what exactly a parental advisory sticker is. A parental advisory sticker is a little black and white label that is put on the CDs and cassettes that contain explicit lyrics. One can clearly see which is the "stickered" music because the stickers say "PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT LYRICS" and are on the bottom right hand corner. The PMRC listened to a lot of popular CDs and were alarmed by what they heard. They decided to ask for a hearing before the United States Senate. The parents wanted to attract attention to certain songs that they thought were "harmful to children and to explore ways to keep these songs away from young people" (Zeinert 60). Their goal was to make record companies use a "rating system" that would be used to evaluate the lyrics used in rock songs, sort of like the kind television broadcasters must use to rate their television shows today. The National Association of Broadcasters said that record companies had to use a system like the one stated above. A few months later, they did. This is how the "warning sticker" was adopted.

The parental advisory label was actually supposed to be a compromise between record companies/music industries and concerned parents to help them control what their children listen to, but it has gotten way out of control. According to Rock Out Censorship, an Internet website that deals with music censoring, Tipper Gore stated that the warning system is supposed to help the parents decide what is right for their children to listen to. Rock Out Censorship sent more than 35,000 signed petitions to the RIAA saying that the warning labels were not the best way to go about censoring and that music should not be censored no matter what. The RIAA replied that the warning labels were good and that the government would not try to do anything else to censor the music ("Petitions").

Parental advisory stickers may have been made to help people, but they hurt more than they help. For example, if a child goes into a record store and sees a CD with the little sticker on the lower right hand corner, that child will want to get the CD even more because he knows his parents will not approve. That is children's way of rebelling against their parents. According to Edward J. Volz, by putting the warning labels on the music, the people are "violating first amendment principles." By putting warning labels on records, record companies have been limiting the freedom of expression of recording artists and record buyers alike.

Eric Nuzum claims that artists say that they have been "censored" by radio stations, religious and community groups, and even their own record labels. In other words, music artists say their rights have been taken away. The right to which they are referring is the right to free expression. The first amendment of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or the press" and some people have been lead to believe that the first amendment rights include everyone. However, that is not true. The first amendment only includes the government, or one of its agencies. The first amendment includes nothing about radio stations and recording labels. In fact, musicians have no legal rights to play their music live, record music, or use certain album covers. Nuzum also believes that recalling albums because of the picture on the cover, and refusing to sell certain albums is illegal and wrong. Recalling and refusing to sell certain albums is wrong, but it is not illegal. One might say, "Art is protected speech. Isn't music art?" Yes, music is art, but music is censored only by the obscenity of the lyrics, not on the ground of art.

What people commonly refer to as "music censorship" is actually implicit censorship, meaning this is a way for community and corporate attempts to regulate music by their personal standards. In other words, the people want to control and ban the music lyrics that they deem offensive and destructive to people's everyday lives. Some people say that everyone has the right to NOT be offended. They also believe that if they find something offensive, it should be censored and/or banned. There is no law that says that someone has the right to not be offended. There isn't even a law that implies that. In fact, the framers of the Constitution expected us to see and hear offensive things. That is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

One reason people want to censor music is because of the use of explicit lyrics and actions in the songs. If one would ask, "Who is the most obscene and violent rapper", people like Butler, Finn and Donovan would answer Marshal Mathers, also known as Eminem. Eminem is a white rapper from Detroit. His album, Slim Shady LP, includes graphic songs about rape and murder. In his album cover there is a picture of a woman's body hanging out of the trunk. Eminem and his daughter are standing on a dock. In his song, 97 Bonnie and Clyde, Shady is getting ready to dump the girls' mother into the lake. Although it is understandable why people would want to censor music like Eminem's, they have no right. The music artist has a right to sing whatever he wants. The music listeners have a right to buy and listen to whatever type of music they want. By censoring the music, they are saying that people do not have the rights stated above.

Another group that found themselves in the middle of a censorship battle was The Beatles. According to Nuzum, The Beatles' original album cover for their Yesterday and Today album showed them wearing white smocks that were covered with raw, bloody meat and they were surrounded by decapitated baby dolls. Capitol Records pulled the albums after only a few weeks in circulation. Then they replaced the original covers with a photo of them wearing their usual attire. Three months before Yesterday and Today was released, John Lennon was miss-quoted when he said, "We're more popular now than Jesus" (qtd. in Nuzum). Afterward, there were a lot of boycotts, protests and even public burnings of Beatle records and merchandise. Nuzum also says that Thurman H. Babbs, a pastor at the New Haven Baptist Church in Cleveland, said that anyone who listened to a Beatles record or went to a concert would not be welcome in that church.

According to Senator San Brownback, most music industries say that kids fewer than eighteen years of age cannot buy music with warning stickers. Hilary Rosen, the CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said that people under seventeen cannot buy stickered music. But, according to research that Brownback did, most of the people buying music with questionable lyrics are between the ages of twelve and seventeen years old. Even though the CDs have warning labels, there is no evidence that proves that it informs parents as to the content, or stops the kids from buying the said CD.

State governments are trying to restrict the age of concertgoers to eighteen years old unless an adult accompanies them. Michigan and South Carolina have tried to pass laws that say that concert officials should be criminally responsible for letting children under eighteen attend concerts without a parent or legal guardian. If a law like that is ever passed, each state will be able to decide which concerts would be under that rule. According to one source, the concerts will be judged like this: "Acts that are violent or destructive, limited to human or animal mutilation, dismemberment, or illegal use of drugs...lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors" ("Petitions"). This law would not only affect extreme lyrics, but also any music that is deemed obscene. One problem that would be sure to arise is that the child wants to go to a concert and the parent(s) do not mind, but they do not want to attend the concert themselves. That would be a problem because then the child would not be able to attend because the law states that an adult must accompany him. Since that is probably what would end up happening, the government may as well just say that anyone under the age of eighteen could not, under any circumstances, go to any concert deemed obscene.

The government could not make a law that stated anyone under eighteen could not go to an obscene concert, because that would "unconstitutionally block their freedom of assembly and their right to view constitutionally protected material" ("Petitions"). More than half of stores that sell CDs are carding people, and if the child is under eighteen, the stores will not sell him any CD with a warning label. Numerous states have tried to pass laws that would make the stores suffer criminally if they allowed a child under eighteen to purchase a CD with the warning label. Pennsylvania wants to be able to arrest a child for trying to buy a CD and make him do community service. Wal-Mart and K-Mart will not stock an album that has a parent advisory label. One problem that would arise is how a police officer could arrest all children who tried to purchase a forbidden CD. The police force does not have enough officers to just arrest children trying to buy CDs.

One source states that music was being censored long before the new millennium. It was not just rap and heavy metal music that was being censored either; it was also ballets and operas. Verdi's operas contained numerous cuts and alteration. Wagner was banned in Israel and his music is still banned there today because he had hateful views that appealed to the nazi's. People who say that they can hear his views in the beat of the music defend the ban on Wagner. Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin ballet is a story about prostitution and murder and had very erotic music ("Banned Music"). According to Volz, music like The Ballad of John and Yoko, sung by Olivia Newton-John, was banned because it "had been found unsuitable for their Mormon audiences" (Volz). The band, "Velvet Underground" was also being censored. Their first album was held back for nine months, from mid 1966 to early 1967, before the record company decided to play it. It was held back because of its use of lyrics that dealt with drugs and sex.

According to Zeinert, one of the first outbreaks of violent music came in 1956. Bill Haley's film, Rock Around the Clock, included a lot of music. When the music was the loudest, the teens in the theater got up and danced. They soon started to destroy the theater; they hit each other, tore up seats, and destroyed everything. Whether or not artists' words cause violence has been a hot debate for over forty years. Ice Cube, a rapper, sung about police violence and soon members of the audience started fighting. Five people carried guns to the concert and fire approximately sixty shots, hitting four people. The music critics blamed the shooting on Ice Cube's performance. Sam Brownback agrees that producing and marketing violent music to kids is dangerous. He says that it sends kids the message that violence is cool and normal and that abusing women is all right in this society. "Whatever we glamorize, we encourage; a society that glorifies violence...will surely grow more violent" (Brownback).

According to Butler, Finn, and Donovan, hard rock and heavy metal bands have been said to be some of the contributing factors to the killings at Columbine High School. The two killers from Columbine apparently listened to dark, heavy metal bands like KMFDM and Rammestein (both German) and Marilyn Manson. KMFDM is a German acronym meaning "no pity for the majority" and Rammestein means "battering ram." One of Rammestein's songs, Spiel Mit Mir, meaning, "Play With Me" is about incest. The entire album is sung in German and there are no translations. KMFDM released their final album, Adios, the day of the shootings. Apparently, police found some lyrics from earlier KMFDM albums on the Trench Coat Mafia's website. A KMFDM member, Sascha Konietzko, when asked about his band's role in the Colorado shootings said, "From the beginning, our music has been a statement against war, oppression, fascism, and violence against others... We are sick and appalled by what took place in Colorado" (qtd. in Butler).

Music has nothing to do with violence. Censoring the music will not help. A person who commits violence would probably do so no matter what. Someone will not go somewhere and listen to "obscene" music and say, "Wow, I'm going to kill myself because that band makes it look cool." The person who would end up doing something that stupid is probably thinking about it for a long time and just decides that he is tired of waiting. David C. King says the music group, Nine Inch Nails, make music critics angry because the lyrics deal with murder, insanity, and suicide. The critics say that kind of music is harmful to children (34), however, according to M.C. Ren, a music performer, music artists' words, whether sung live or on a CD, are not responsible for violence (cited in Zeinert 58). In support of this, according to Kathleen Knull, two different pairs of parents went to court to prove that their son's suicide was related to the lyrics of Judas Priest in 1991. The parents lost their case. In 1990, the group 2 Live Crew was in trouble for using nasty lyrics in their song, As Nasty As They Wanna Be. A Fort Lauderdale jury found 2 Live Crew innocent.

Parents should pay more attention to what their kids do while away from home, like smoking and drinking, instead of the kind of music they listen to. Music cannot cause permanent liver and lung damage. People like Barbara Dority believe that many kids use music to get away from the stress of their problems. Some children receive pressure every day to drink, smoke and have sex. Those children who do not wish to subject themselves to that kind of abuse need an outlet to let go of the anger they may feel towards the other children who do smoke, drink and have sex. To many children, music is that outlet.

The censorship of any type of music should be banned regardless of its content. There is no point in censoring something, like music, that only a handful of people want to censor. The parents, who say they are for censorship, see it as "a tool for the parents so...the parent would have something to go by to help them see what their kid(s) were listening to" ("Petitions"). That is what the parents say, but what they really want is to control what their kids do. That is understandable, but it is not acceptable. For example, people understand why a woman who is raped may want to get an abortion but may not accept her decision to do so.

The parents say they are worried about the music that their children are listening to. However, if the parent(s) raise their children correctly and teach them right from wrong, they will not have to worry about the music that their children are listening to. The child will know what the parent expects from him, and therefore will be more apt to understand the consequences that may lie ahead of him if he decides to listen to heavy metal music and take part in what a song may suggest. Many children, like the one mentioned above, are responsible enough to listen to heavy metal music without it corrupting them. It is the handful of children that cannot listen to heavy metal music that ruin it for everybody else. If someone believes that music censorship should be banned, there are plenty of ways to take a stand. That person can go to www.theroc.com and sign a petition saying that music censorship should be banned.

There are many positive and negative things about banning students from driving cars to school. Some positive examples included will consist of student accidents, being late for school, and some negative things about banning students from driving to school.

First, if we banned students from driving to school, there would be less accidents during lunch rush. For example, since the students probably do not pay attention to signs and traffic lights, the percentage of student accidents are high. Since we cannot make all students obey traffic laws, it would be a good idea to ban driving to school. Another example could be that students who are going to lunch or going home will probably be in a hurry to get there. That will make them pay less attention to the road and signs, and more attention on a song, conversation, or getting to where they are going.

My Sister, Crystal, has had the greatest impact on my life. She has been there for me through everything. She helped me figure out what I wanted to do with my life. While my mother was telling me what I should do, Crystal was telling me that I could do anything, if I just put my mind to it. She helped me realize that I wanted to go to college to better myself.

In the book, 'salem's Lot, written by Stephen King, there were many important characters, but one in particular, Mark Petrie. If Mark Petrie was not in the book the way he was, the outcome of the book would be very different. Mark was very courageous. He also over-trusts his judgment and was intelligent and well read.

Mark Petrie was twelve years old. He was very courageous. He might have been a little too courageous. He went to the Marsten House all by himself to destroy Barlow. He also went into the basement of Eva Millers' boarding house to destroy Barlow. If Mark had not been so courageous, he would not have set out to the Marsten House to destroy Barlow. Then he would not have met Ben Mears, Matt Burke, and the rest and helped them destroy Barlow. They might not have destroyed Barlow without Mark's help, and Mark would have definitely been bitten by the vampires and been turned into the undead.

Mark also over-trusts his own judgment. He just automatically thinks that he will go to the Marsten House and destroy Barlow, all before dinner. He thought he knew how strong Barlow was, but he did not. If mark would not have been that way, the book would have changed dramatically. He might have thought things through a little better before rushing up to the Marsten House. He might have let the other people help him with it instead of thinking he could do it all by himself. He also would have been more prepared for Barlow's strength because he would have been on his toes instead of slacking.

Mark was very intelligent and well read. He liked to read about vampires so he knew what to do to defeat them. When he was caught in the Marsten House by Straker, and tied up, he used the Houdini trick to get himself out. If Mark hadn't been so well read and intelligent, again the book would be different. He wouldn't have known so much about vampires. Plus, when Danny Glick was outside Mark's bedroom window, Mark would have let Danny hypnotize him and would have invited Danny into his house and Danny would have turned Mark into a vampire. When Mark was in the Marsten House and was tied up by Straker, he would have been turned into a vampire right then because he wouldn't have known the Houdini trick.

There were many important characters in the book, 'salem's Lot, written by Stephen King. The important one was Mark Petrie. He was, as stated before, very courageous and well read. He also over-trusts his own judgment. Again, as stated before, if Mark was not in the book the way he was, the outcome of this book would be very different. Mark Petrie was a good choice because he did so many things and was good at what he did.

Spanking: Right or Wrong?

"...We all know that parents have to control and restrain their kids..." (John Hoffman). That sentence is very true. Although the way to control and restrain the children may change, the fact that parents have to control them does not. The discipline of a child has always been left up to the parents of that child. Nobody used to care how a parent disciplined their child(ren), but now, things have changed. Even as early as the 1990's, many parents spanked their children in public without any kind of disapproval, but now, in many states that is looked down upon and sometimes even illegal. First of all, one must ask the question: what exactly is spanking? For the purposes of this paper, spanking means, according to Lynn Rosellini, "one or two flat-handed swats on a child's wrist or rear end, NOT a sustained whipping with Dad's belt." According to Karina Bland, if one would ask parents if they spanked their children now, most would say no, even if they did. That is because "Parents who spank in public risk being rebuked or even turned in to child welfare officials" (Bland). Someone should tell these parents, 1) not to lie and 2) that spanking is not the answer. There is no good that will come of spanking. It is wrong and should be prohibited.

One reason spanking is wrong is because it hurts the child in the long run. Research shows that "in a four-year study of children ages 1 to 4 years, researchers found that those who were spanked at least three times a week had a two-point decrease in IQ, while those who weren't spanked had a three-point increase" (Why Spanking Doesn't Work). Researchers believe that is because children who are spanked do not have as many opportunities to build reasoning, problem-solving and language skills. That is true. A child who is told that what he/she did was wrong and also told what could be done differently next time is more likely to learn more than a child who is spanked.

Also, spanking teaches children the wrong lessons. According to David Benatar, spanking "...conveys the message that violence is an appropriate way to settle differences or to respond to problems." That could also lead to some long-term problems. For example, a child who is physically punished might be more likely to commit some act of violence against another person or thing because that is all the child has known. Many children, especially young ones, learn by mimicking others. If a child does something wrong and gets spanked, either by a hand or by an object, that child is more likely to use that type of behavior on others, because that is what his mother/father did to him. Parents who spank usually give reasons for why they do it.

Although parents give reasons for spanking their children, those reasons are not adequate. Parents give reasons for spanking so they do not feel so bad for physically punishing their children. One reason parents spank is so that "the child will know what it feels like" (What's Wrong With Spanking). An example of this scenario is say there is a boy and a girl playing together. The children's mother is in the room watching. The boy is making something out of legos and the girl, thinking she will be helpful, tries to put a piece of legos onto the pile. The girl accidentally knocks the legos over. The boy is angry with his sister for knocking over the legos and hits her. The mother, seeing the whole thing, yells at the boy, grabs him up and spanks him. While spanking him, she says "This will teach you not to hit your sister."

That is not a good way for the mother to handle things. The mother thinks that by hitting him, she has sufficiently taught him that hitting hurts and that he will not do it again. While trying to teach him a lesson, she has only hindered his learning. Instead, what this mother could have done was say something like "Son, I am very disappointed in you. You go stand in a corner until I've cooled down so we can talk about this, and I want you to think long and hard about what you did to your sister." Then she could let him stand in the corner for about 2-5 minutes (depending on how old the child is) while she cools down. Then, she and her son could sit down somewhere and talk, like in the kitchen. She could explain, in terms that her son could understand, that hitting is not a good way to resolve differences. That he should have stopped and looked at the situation before jumping to conclusions. Instead of assuming his sister broke the legos on purpose, he could have asked her if she did it on purpose and...

Another reason parents spank is because "...they're angry, scared or simply up to their eyeballs in frustration and don't know what else to do" (Why Spanking Doesn't Work). That is when spanking can really get scary. If a parent loses control and spanks a child in anger, it could do a lot more physical damage to the child. Assume that a mother has come home from a very stressful day at work. She just picked up her daughter from daycare. The mother is trying to get dinner ready for the rest of the family and trying to tidy up the house. She also must do the laundry and take out the trash. Since the mother is so busy, she puts her daughter in front of the television and tells her not to touch the stuff on it because it will break. Five minutes later, the mother hears a crash. She runs in, sees that her daughter is not hurt, and yells and grabs the child's arm and turns her over and spanks her hard on the butt. The mother gets her frustration out, but ends up taking it out on the child.

That is not a very good thing to do either, because the spanking probably had nothing to do with the daughter. The mother was upset from work and because she had to do a lot of chores around the house, and so, when her daughter broke the thing on the television, it was easier for the mother to spank the daughter and take all her anger out on the child to make the mother feel better. That could really hurt the child because the mother could spank the child harder that she intended and bruise or otherwise hurt the child.

Instead of spanking their children, parents could find other forms of discipline that are less likely to resort to violence. Some other forms of discipline include time-outs, grounding, and "setting firm, consistent, age-appropriate, and acceptable limits" (Sureshrani Paintal). An example given by Paintal is that "...although a 5-year-old child may be able to resist the urge to touch things, it is not reasonable to expect that a 2-year-old will be able to handle such limits." Therefore, parents may need to childproof their homes to protect breakable items, and to keep children away from dangerous objects.

A time-out means, when the child does something wrong, he must sit out or stand in a corner and not play with his toys. That form of discipline works well with young children, because to younger children, toys are everything. Grounding means to take something away from the child that the child really likes. Grounding works better with older children because the parent can take away privileges to the phone, television, radio or other things the child likes to use.

Some parents, like Crystal Lamere, mother of three--ages 2, 11, and 15 used to use spanking along with some other techniques talked about earlier such as time-outs and grounding. Since her 11 and 15 year olds have grown older, she does not spank them much anymore. She does spank her 2 year old daughter, though. Lynn Rosellini says that "the best disciplinary approach... is to use a number of methods, including reasoning, time-outs, rewards, withdrawals of privileges..." Rosellini also says that spanking seems to work best with some other techniques. Although Lamere has found a way to use spanking in conjunction with other forms of discipline, spanking is still not a very healthy form of discipline for any child.

Corporal punishment (spanking) is not only used in homes, it is also used in schools. According to Felicia F. Romeo, "...as many as twenty-six states allow corporal punishment in their public schools" usually in the elementary school level. Pamela Stock adds that corporal punishment can be used on children as young as five years of age. Stock also states that "policies vary from state to state, even among individual districts." The question to ask here is why should a teacher or principal have the right to hit a child? The answer is quite simple, they shouldn't.

Teachers are there to teach and protect, not harm. By allowing schools to spank difficult children, we are telling a child that he has no rights. The child cannot defend himself during the spanking and therefore, will be at the mercy of the spanker. Some parents, like Crystal Lamere, want the child's school to use corporal punishment on their child(ren). I response to one of my questions in the interview, "Would you allow your child's school to use corporal punishment on your child?", Lamere said "Yes, actually I requested it in one school district." The school district, not being in a district using corporal punishment in public schools, disregarded her request.

Although some, like Lamere, wish to have the schools use corporal punishment when disciplining their children, many do not. Those parents may think that they have no say in what their child's school does, but those parents are wrong. According to Pamela Stock, parents who do not want someone to spank their child can request a copy of the discipline policy of the school and write a letter saying that they do not want the school to spank their children. Most of the time, the letter would be sufficient in deterring the school from using corporal punishment on that child.

There will always be parents who believe that spanking is the only way to go about disciplining their children. Nobody will be able to change their minds. Instead, people should look at what is right for them. One cannot tell anyone else how to raise and discipline their children. One can give advice and personal experience, but one cannot make someone discipline their children a certain way. To some, spanking is a normal, healthy way of disciplining children. To others, it is not. Parents today must decide whether or not spanking is right for them and their families. If they do not, they will find themselves wondering what to do. Spanking is wrong. It hurts the child, both physically and emotionally, but many do not agree with that. They can either choose to agree, or not agree. That is their choice.

1,843 words

Television: Is It Good or Bad?

How far has the television come? In 1949, people thought that it would be a wonderful thing. According to Marie Winn, most early articles about television were "accompanied by a photograph... showing a family cozily sitting together before the television set..." How were people in the 1940's supposed to know that by 1982 more than half of all American families would own, not one, but two or more television sets? They couldn't. Just as people today cannot have any inkling as to what tomorrow may hold for them. In 1949, television might have been deemed a great thing, but things have changed. Television is no longer a magnificent influence upon the family.

Many people say that television is a good thing because it keeps the children out of the way of the parents, some television is educational, and it "brings people together". Those assumptions are not totally true. It is true that by plunking a child in front of the television, the child will be out of the way, but the child will lose the bonding time between his/her parents. The child cannot interact and learn from the television as he could with his parents.

It is also true that some television is educational, but not all channels are appropriate for children at all times. Cartoons on channel 11 may be suitable for a 7 year old, but the dramas, like Dawson's Creek, probably would not be. Of course, then one might wonder why the child is watching educational television instead of helping a parent around the house. Surely that is educational also. By sitting a child in front of the television, the parents are letting the television raise their kids for them.

Whereas there are a few "good" qualities of television, there are even more that are not so good. Even the good qualities have downsides to them, as mentioned earlier. Any television company can show almost anything it wants, thanks to our First Amendment. One must put the word almost into that sentence though.

Television companies can put a lot on the screen, but some things they cannot put up are pornographic pictures and sexual intercourse. Yet, many have found ways around that technicality. They may not be able to show a man and a woman having sexual intercourse, but television companies can give the illusion that people are engaging in the act. It is probably all right to assume that every adult has seen a man and a woman in bed on television. What no one has seen is a man and a woman making love on television. No one can truthfully say they have. They may see a man and a woman kissing and pulling the covers over their heads and making noises, but no one has actually seen any sexual act on television. By television, it is meant the basic channels , no pornographic channels.

Another bad quality of television is violence. If one would flip through a couple of channels on their television, one or more of those channels would most likely be showing or talking about violence of some kind. Whether it would be rape, beatings or murder, there would probably be at least one channel showing violence of some kind. Violence on the screen can, and does, hurt anyone and everyone--children, adolescents, and even adults.

Sissela Bok believes that "viewers who become accustomed to seeing violence as an acceptable... way of dealing with problems find it easier to identify with aggressors and to suppress... pity... for victims of violence." That makes sense. Someone who watches a lot of violence on the television would more likely believe that violence is OK because it is seen on TV. One violence-believer might ask the question: Why would violence be on television if it were really that bad? The answer to that question is simple. TV companies do not really care. They want to show what gets ratings. Sex and violence get ratings, therefore TV companies use them to their advantage.

Mike Males is in opposition to TV being a bad influence, or at least to TV being the only bad influence. In relation to how to change children's behavior, Males says that instead of blaming it solely on television, adults should change their behaviors because children mimic adults. Then, Males goes on to say that "instead of focusing on adults, almost everyone points a finger at kids--and at... TV..." In other words, Males believes that people should be more hard on the adults, and less hard on children and TV.

While it is true that children mimic adults, it is also true that children mimic anything and anyone. So, one could say that although children mimic adults, they also mimic things that they see on television and repeat things they hear on the radio. Maybe, adults should watch what they do and say in front of their children, and pay closer attention to what their children watch on television and listen to on the radio. That will not, by far, stop the violence in the world, but it may help.

Steven Holtzman, while talking about The World Wide Web, says "...today you can't turn off the Internet." The same is true with television. One can turn the television off in one's home, and can even forbid one's family to watch it, but television will still be there. TV is here to stay. It has been for many years now. Television is not going away, and it does not need to, but television companies should at least screen what is shown on the screen better. While the average person cannot do much to stop what television companies put onto their screens, the average person can, and must, screen what their families, especially what their children, watch. If people do not watch channels with a lot of pornographic pictures, sex, and violence on them, television companies might stop showing them. Television companies go by ratings. If nobody watches certain things on certain channels, television companies will stop showing them.

1,008 words

Women and Abortion

In the early 1960's, Texas laws stated that a woman could get an abortion only in a life-or-death situation. Because of that law, 149 out of 150 abortions were performed illegally (Herda 13). But two young lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, both fresh out of law school, were determined to change that. They met with a young woman, Norma McCorvey, who wanted an abortion, but could not get one because of the law. After hearing McCorvey's story, Weddington and Coffee knew she was their plaintiff, the complaining party in a lawsuit. The two lawyers decided now was the time to go to court. On January 22, 1973, three years after Weddington and Coffee started their fight on abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court found the Texas law banning abortion unconstitutional. As a result, a woman should always have the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. A woman who decides to have an abortion is not making a selfish decision. A woman also has the right to get an abortion if she is a victim of rape. Some people believe that abortion is murder and some believe that parental consent laws are necessary for under-age abortions.

It is not a selfish act for a woman to get an abortion. Merle Hoffman says, "Abortion is a mother's act. It is an act of sacrifice, love, power, and necessity..." (Bender and Leone eds. "Abortion Is" 55). Pregnancy is a great joy to some women, but an emotionally and physically stressful time for others. Some women cannot handle the emotional stress that pregnancy puts on them and that makes them very harmful to themselves and their unborn children. For example, say a woman knows that she cannot provide the necessary care for her unborn baby. By getting an abortion, she is showing that she cares too much for her baby to let him be born into a world that will look down upon him. The woman could have the baby and give him up for adoption, but that is not a very good alternative to abortion because there is a chance that her baby would not find a loving home. How could anyone say a child is better off to be born and not have a home or loving family, than to be aborted and thus not have to go through the humiliation of living and growing up in an orphanage.

Rape victims, especially, have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Sue Hertz says, "Rape is violent enough without having two victims instead of one..." (qtd. in Bender and Leone eds. "Rape Justifies" 132.) If a woman gets pregnant from a rape, there are two victims, the woman because she was raped and the baby because of the emotional stress of the mother. For example, suppose a woman is raped and ends up getting pregnant. The woman may think that she has two choices: she could have the baby or get an abortion. If the woman has the baby, that could hurt him because babies can feel the tension and stress of their mothers. The baby could also be hurt because, as Jerry Z. Muller says, "Mothers who are not prepared to raise a baby, because of rape, etc., are more likely to become violent or criminals" (qtd. in Bender and Leone eds. "Abortion Is" 23). But, if the woman gets an abortion, she would not be putting her baby through all of that pain. In other words, rape justifies abortion because nobody should be able to tell a woman that she cannot live a normal life just because someone hurt her and got her pregnant.

Aborting a fetus, although sometimes necessary, is considered, by some, to be murder. 1.5 million abortions are performed each year (Bender and Leone eds. "Abortion is Murder" 31). This statistic has been used by William Brennan to prove that abortion is like "a modern day holocaust" (qtd. in Bender and Leone eds. "Abortion is Murder" 31). Surely, one can see that is not so. According to an excerpt from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, Adolph Hitler had approximately 15 million people killed in about a four-year span. The reason for their demise, they were not like him. Hitler wanted to get rid of everyone in Germany who was different from what he believed people should be. Women, on the other hand, seek abortions for many legitimate reasons. Some of those reasons include getting pregnant by rape, the baby would have grave deformities, or the mother and/or child's life or health would be in danger. Therefore, abortion is not murder because women have legitimate reasons for terminating a pregnancy.

Some people believe that parental consent laws are necessary for any minor to get an abortion. Adrienne T. Washington says that parental consent laws, laws that require the consent of a teenager's parents before the teen can receive an abortion, are necessary (Bender and Leone eds. "Parental Consent" 92). Washington and many others believe that is in the best interest of the teen. However, those laws hurt more than they help. Many teens that do not tell their parents are often physically and/or emotionally abused, or they are victims of rape or incest. Also, many teens do not want to shame or disappoint their parents by telling the parents they got pregnant. People who believe parental consent laws are necessary think that sexual activity will decrease, but according to Jennifer Coburn, in states that have those laws, sexual activity rates did not decrease, but rather, health risks increased (Bender and Leone eds. "Parental Consent" 97-98). Therefore, parental consent laws are not only unnecessary; they are a health risk to the teenager.

In conclusion, because of the prestigious trial of Roe v. Wade, which happened 30 years ago this year, a woman has the right to decide to continue with a pregnancy or to get an abortion. A woman who decides to have an abortion is not making a selfish decision. A woman also has the right to get an abortion if she is a victim of rape. Some people believe that abortion is murder and some believe that parental consent laws are necessary. Surely, one can see that abortion is a woman's right and that right should never be taken away. Help women everywhere by believing and telling others that abortion is a woman's right. Support women who get abortions because it is in their darkest hour when they need a friend the most.