Should we blame accidents?

BP had another oil spill this week in Lake Michigan from an Indiana refinery.The spill was significantly less than the gulf spill but the fact is that it still happened. People all over my personal social media sites were outraged at the fact that this happened in the first place and that BP should be basically exiled as a company due to their history of spilling in the past. I think what really surprised me after hearing this was the fact that people are outraged due to an accident and also due to the fact that this isnt the only spill going on since the gulfs.




Blame is defined as; "to hold responsible" but I don't think BP should be held responsible. Accidents happen all the time but I feel in America we tend to exemplify mistakes. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the spill was a complete accident. So why should this even be in the news in the first place? It was an accident. It confuses me why people seem to blame without reason and i think that BP shouldn't be in the first place. Like any company they have a bunch of security measures that are taken to help stop spills but sometimes that just doesn't work but, everyone makes mistakes including companies.

On another note, the recent Lake Michigan isnt the only spill in the past year. Many spills across the country have put more oil into the gulf the the current BP spill but that gets no media attention at all. I think this is due to BP being the the culprit in this past event. Since the most well known spill in the past has been the BP gulf oil spill, many are quick to hate BP for its destruction to environments and destruction to specific animals.

Is it right to celebrate a death?

Long story short: A man named Fred Phelps recently died. You may be asking so what? If so, you might want to know that Phelps was a anti-gay preacher also known for protesting at funerals of soldiers and that of gay men and women. My views on the event arent totally supportive of the typical American response. According to Jessica Ravitz from CNN, Phelps "believed gay and lesbians should be put to death". The internet was buzzing with constant hatred towards this man and people seemed to be incredibly content with his death while also proposing the idea to protest Phelps' funeral . Therefore, throughout this blog I intend to answer two questions. First if it is right to protest this mans funeral and second, if we should be happy/celebrate his death. 

 

Again, Jessica Ravitz from CNN wrote an article titled, Should we celebrate Fred Phelps' death" where she compiled quotes from various people to let the audience of her article decide what the right thing to do is. In my opinion, regardless of this mans actions, it is not morally right to celebrate someones death even in the case of Phelps, who has really done some terrible things in his lifetime (just glance at his Wikipedia page and the list of his appalling actions and ideals goes on and on). It might seem like a stretch but  I think that celebrating this man death is something that he would have wanted. His name and message is on the front page of newspapers across the country and pictures like the one below are everywhere. I think the best thing to do is try and forgot this man ever existed and take the high road and not celebrate his death at all. Sadly a large amount of people seem to disagree with me, especially Americans. According to popular social media sites like Facebook, twitter and Reddit, many users across America thought that picketing this mans funeral and provoking his family was the most viable option to get him back for the suffering he had provided to other families. On a side note; a Facebook page titled "Protest Fred Phelps' funeral had thousand of people in support of the page.  

picture of a child from the Westboro church 

Phelps' is also pretty well known for protesting funerals of both soldiers and gays. The Westboro church, where Phelps is a pastor, said that, "we ask that the public have a little decency and respect by allowing us to mourn a great man who... protected[ed] American from the threat of fags and perverts". In my opinion, I think that since people have the right to picket and protest funerals that they should protest at Phelps'. If one of my family members had died and the church with Phelps had protested their funeral with, “GOD HATES FAGS” signs I would be beyond mad at these people. I would hate them. And that is how many people across the country feel in regards to his death and justify protesting at his funeral. I think a pretty consistent American theme is to take the high road and be the bigger man but in this situation there is a exception. I'm certainly not advocating for an eye for an eye type scenario but this man has some crazy beliefs and ideals that really are doing more harm then good and only if I was affected personally would i feel it is necessary to protest his funeral.

Climate Change in Chiberia

Weather you believe in climate change or not, the real question comes out to be what does it matter? For decades politicians have debated whether or not it exists but for what? So they get to say they win the argument? It really does not make sense to me.

Carol Costello, an opinion writer for CNN writes that their are, "six different specific categories that respond to the issue in different ways. (Link to article). The six groups have different ideas on climate changes including, "the alarmed, the concerned, the cautious, the disengaged, the doubtful, and the dismissive."All these groups derive from a report from a Yale professor, Anthony Leiseworitz who is an expert in climate change.

Climate change, or more commonly called global warming often times makes the news with different congressmen and women speaking out about the issue but why? There are rarely any proposals for laws in relation to climate change or new issues revealed to climate change in general.

Their are tons of different viewpoints to climate change and many different reactions. The question that rarely gets answered is why? If people continue to debate this issue, no one side seems like they are going to win the debate.

SAT is changing STAT

The SAT, well known for be the main reason kids get in to college is becoming totally changed. And that is fantastic. For too long, the SAT has been based on timing rather than knowledge; finding the right answer rather than explaining why. Thus, some kids have really struggled on standardized tests but change is coming now.

Starting in 2016 the test will change. College board president, David Coleman agreed that the tests didn't accurately test knowledge by saying that, "It is our time to admit that the SAT and ACT have become to disconnected from the works of high school students". (USA Today). Coleman carries a lot of truth to these words. If you are in high school or have ever been (which is a huge majority of people) you'll know that standardized tests reflect none of the work that goes on in the classroom. Classroom learning tends to put a larger emphasis on why things work and happen etc. rather than filling in a bubble on a test and then moving on.

(David Coleman)

People against test changes argue that we need to continue to be able to measure the success of students on a grand scale through one test. But should one test be the main reason you get into school? No! Colleges obviously look at other things but test scores are weighted heavily. Colleges dont look into who the person is who is applying and that is wrong. You cant tell if a person is compassionate by a test score, or if they have a great idea for an invention to better the world. These tests scores are holding students back and this change to the SAT is a great step forward to more progressive college admission steps.

College is BAD?

Mark Cuban thinks college is a waste of time for athletes. In my opinion, he is right. Cuban, who is the owner of the American basketball team the Dallas Maveriks thinks that, "there is no reason for a kid to go to college because they are not going to class anyway." If you are unframiliar with the sport, to go to the professional leagues, high school students must play either one year in college or wait until they are 19 years old.

Cuban proposes a new path for athletes to take instead of going to one year of college, with classes that are often missed and grades that are often forged. The NBA-D league is Cuban's plan in which 18 year old athletes will play in a sort of NBA "minor leagues" for up and coming players that are still young.

To me this is a fantastic idea. Most college athletes for revenue generating sports, (typically basketball and football) tend to take classes that are easier just so they can focus on their specific sports. Sending players to the "D-league" instead of college gives them money for playing during the year and also possible better competition to prepare them for the professional leagues. This is a really hot topic up for debate as of late and I believe that going to college for athletes is not the right decision.