This one after people in my Leadership class. I swear people can be so ignorant -.-
Not long ago, my Leadership class had a little discussion about marijuana. One individual said "_weed cures cancer_," another said "_you cannot become addicted to weed_" and a few other absurd defenses. This lead me to wonder if people actually know about marijuana and how "healthy" is really is.
First, marijuana does not cure cancer, it gives people cancer just like cigarettes. Marijuana is known to help the pain associated with cancer but smoking anything can give you cancer, especially marijuana because you're putting smoke into your lungs, holding it for as long as possible, letting it get into the lung tissue and destroy it before finally exhaling. It also can cause oral cancers like cigarettes.
Marijuana is a drug and you can become addicted just like any other drug. People believe because marijuana doesn't have addictive chemicals such as nicotine that you cannot become addicted but it's not the marijuana, it's the person. They develop a dependence on the drug so they need more and more to support their habit no matter who they hurt.
It is also possibly linked to childhood problems if a pregnant mother smokes marijuana such as: problems with decision making, memory and the ability to remain attentive. It is unsure if these problems will persist through adulthood but it is possible that more problems will occur while the brain develops.
Although I am not a marijuana defender I do believe it should be decriminalized and treated like alcohol; do it at home or special bars and don't drive while under the influence. I doubt this will ever be the case unless a pro-weed party gets into government but I doubt that will even happen.
Your thoughts? Arguments? Feel free to write a comment on your opinion on weed and the effects and legal status.
Monday, May 30, 2011
How far is media willing to go for the ultimate story?
Nothing really to say about this one. I'm just hoping it can hit people about people like paparazzi
This past Saturday I learned about R. Budd Dwyer and how he took his own life on national television during a press conference. I also found the video and was surprised when the cameraman didn't even jump or anything after Dwyer pulled the trigger of his revolver and actually zoomed in on his face to show the blood pouring from his nose and the wound in his head.
Any _normal_ person would normally look away and respect the man but not this cameraman, he tried showing everything he could and for what? To shock audiences at home? Traumatize the viewers including children? Or thinking he could sell the tape to someone for the ultimate footage: A well liked politician committing suicide on live TV.
R. Budd Dwyer was a Pennsylvania politician who was convicted of receiving a bribe from a Californian accounting firm to try and get a multimillion-dollar contract to determine compensation to each employee after Pennsylvania discovered state workers had overpaid federal taxes due to errors in state withholding. Throughout the entire trial he stated he was innocent but was ultimately facing 55 years imprisonment and a $300,000 fine.
January 22, 1987 at the age of 47, R. Budd Dwyer while still in office took his life with a .357 Magnum revolver because he could not handle the sentence which many people including himself believed was a set up by conspirators against him.
Fortunately, his wife was able to collect full survivor benefits because he was still in office at the time which totaled over $1.28 million. A spokesperson for Dwyer said that he possibly committed suicide to preserve the pension for his family because their finances were ruined due to the legal defense costs.
There are many other tales of media trying to get the ultimate shot by any means with no respect for the people, like Princess Diana, the media was just swarming the car after her death trying to get a shot of the Princess in a bloody mess.
So, do you think the media has any morals at all when it comes to getting a story no matter how gruesome it may be?
This past Saturday I learned about R. Budd Dwyer and how he took his own life on national television during a press conference. I also found the video and was surprised when the cameraman didn't even jump or anything after Dwyer pulled the trigger of his revolver and actually zoomed in on his face to show the blood pouring from his nose and the wound in his head.
Any _normal_ person would normally look away and respect the man but not this cameraman, he tried showing everything he could and for what? To shock audiences at home? Traumatize the viewers including children? Or thinking he could sell the tape to someone for the ultimate footage: A well liked politician committing suicide on live TV.
R. Budd Dwyer was a Pennsylvania politician who was convicted of receiving a bribe from a Californian accounting firm to try and get a multimillion-dollar contract to determine compensation to each employee after Pennsylvania discovered state workers had overpaid federal taxes due to errors in state withholding. Throughout the entire trial he stated he was innocent but was ultimately facing 55 years imprisonment and a $300,000 fine.
January 22, 1987 at the age of 47, R. Budd Dwyer while still in office took his life with a .357 Magnum revolver because he could not handle the sentence which many people including himself believed was a set up by conspirators against him.
Fortunately, his wife was able to collect full survivor benefits because he was still in office at the time which totaled over $1.28 million. A spokesperson for Dwyer said that he possibly committed suicide to preserve the pension for his family because their finances were ruined due to the legal defense costs.
There are many other tales of media trying to get the ultimate shot by any means with no respect for the people, like Princess Diana, the media was just swarming the car after her death trying to get a shot of the Princess in a bloody mess.
So, do you think the media has any morals at all when it comes to getting a story no matter how gruesome it may be?
New articles
Bonjour, comment sa-va?
I have just recently written 3 new articles -in the same day no less, that'll keep me from writing for a good two weeks =) I'll post them each as individual posts starting with this one about growing meat in labs, or I like "test tube meat"
Would you eat test tube meat?
Can PETA, Vegetarians and Vegans finally eat meat now? Nicholas Genovese, a biological engineer along with researcher Dr. Vladimir Mironov may have finally found a way to actually __grow__ meat.
Supported and funded by PETA themselves, they have spent the last 10 years researching and trying to figure out how to make an artificial meat _in vitro_.
Now, you may be thinking "How could they grow meat without a living animal?" Dr. Genovese had this to say "Skeletal muscle fibers, we put them together, they fuse ... this is the main element of any meat."
Is it really that simple? Well, it may sound simple enough but it does seem fairly complicated as it took them 10 years to find how to do it successfully.
The advantages of something like this is that it could significantly reduce the greenhouse gases created by the various animals being held for food and also can prevent the ill-treatment and suffering of these animals. So far, there isn't really any negative effects, at least if it's grown in a lab, we know what's going inside us. With farm meat you never know if you're eating growth hormones or antibiotics, it's just meat.
So, does this stand a chance of being the "meat of the future?" or just a waste of 10 years?
Thanks again for reading and I hope ViewsHound can accept it. If not, I'll just scrap it. =)
Friday, May 27, 2011
First Article on Suite101
Hello. I've decided to try and make more money writing by writing for multiple sites. I've signed up for Suite101.com and just had my first article published here. So my plan, maybe, is to post my opinion articles on ViewsHound and all others on that site unless I could actually find a site that is willing to pay up front for articles like mine. Thanks =)
Link again
Link again
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Why are gays so hated?
Next up on the list of growing articles, my article on gays. Riiiight.... Here
There's so much hate in the world yet there is no reason for it. Today I want to focus on gays and their struggle to fit in with our society.
Thursday May 26, my school held an annual Day of Silence where students can go the whole day without talking to actually speak out against homophobia but I just wish didn't have to do this to begin with because the hate just should not exist.
The Bible says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." But why must we follow the Bible? To me it's a fictional novel written by man, not a higher power so why must we follow it? Because other humans are too weak to believe that man runs the world, not a higher deity and that priests, pastors etc. are too damn charismatic and can win over people like nothing and introduces them into the hatred of others.
They are not always to blame mind you, parents and other adults can also pass hatred onto their children and warp their minds into believing that gays are the scum of the earth and deserve to be hung. I do tend to use graphic scenarios and harsh words at times so bear with me.
I was lucky enough to be born and raised away from hate, I was taught that everyone was equal, I was not taught colour, I was not taught sexual orientation, I was not taught of males and females, I was raised to find out on my own so I didn't have opinions in my head of what to expect if I met someone who was not the same as me and now I try to make sure people get the rights they deserve.
I was a member of my school's GSA or Gay Straight Alliance for a year before I realized they didn't really get much done and never returned for a second year but at least we did try to help change people but that's a lost cause seeing as a bunch of teenagers are not exactly gay friendly at times.
"Don't ask, don't tell", a great slogan. People do not need to know if you are gay or straight, people's private lives should be private because no one needs to know.
Gay pride parades though, they are great and I find humor in it, a bunch of gays running around having a grand ol' time just makes me smile.
But onto the topic that's the most controversial to me, gay marriage. Religious groups hate this idea, Conservative politicians hate the idea because they do not want gays to have the same rights as everyone else because it will go against the Bible and it's too Liberal.
One definition of marriage -
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The correct definition of marriage -
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
See the difference? One is the traditional man and woman which so many people are for completely and the other mentions nothing of gender, the one people gay or straight are struggling for. Why can't we just give in and let everyone marry? In Canada we have no problem with gay marriage, sure the religious would say we're ruining traditional marriage but I say so what? Traditions fail sooner or later, time to move on. Life is too short for people to try and deny people their right to love.
Love may be blind but so are humans. Once you open your eyes maybe you can see the beauty behind love no matter if it's with the same sex or not.
There's so much hate in the world yet there is no reason for it. Today I want to focus on gays and their struggle to fit in with our society.
Thursday May 26, my school held an annual Day of Silence where students can go the whole day without talking to actually speak out against homophobia but I just wish didn't have to do this to begin with because the hate just should not exist.
The Bible says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." But why must we follow the Bible? To me it's a fictional novel written by man, not a higher power so why must we follow it? Because other humans are too weak to believe that man runs the world, not a higher deity and that priests, pastors etc. are too damn charismatic and can win over people like nothing and introduces them into the hatred of others.
They are not always to blame mind you, parents and other adults can also pass hatred onto their children and warp their minds into believing that gays are the scum of the earth and deserve to be hung. I do tend to use graphic scenarios and harsh words at times so bear with me.
I was lucky enough to be born and raised away from hate, I was taught that everyone was equal, I was not taught colour, I was not taught sexual orientation, I was not taught of males and females, I was raised to find out on my own so I didn't have opinions in my head of what to expect if I met someone who was not the same as me and now I try to make sure people get the rights they deserve.
I was a member of my school's GSA or Gay Straight Alliance for a year before I realized they didn't really get much done and never returned for a second year but at least we did try to help change people but that's a lost cause seeing as a bunch of teenagers are not exactly gay friendly at times.
"Don't ask, don't tell", a great slogan. People do not need to know if you are gay or straight, people's private lives should be private because no one needs to know.
Gay pride parades though, they are great and I find humor in it, a bunch of gays running around having a grand ol' time just makes me smile.
But onto the topic that's the most controversial to me, gay marriage. Religious groups hate this idea, Conservative politicians hate the idea because they do not want gays to have the same rights as everyone else because it will go against the Bible and it's too Liberal.
One definition of marriage -
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The correct definition of marriage -
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
See the difference? One is the traditional man and woman which so many people are for completely and the other mentions nothing of gender, the one people gay or straight are struggling for. Why can't we just give in and let everyone marry? In Canada we have no problem with gay marriage, sure the religious would say we're ruining traditional marriage but I say so what? Traditions fail sooner or later, time to move on. Life is too short for people to try and deny people their right to love.
Love may be blind but so are humans. Once you open your eyes maybe you can see the beauty behind love no matter if it's with the same sex or not.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Music from the 1900s and today. What happened?
Hello there. I wrote a new article about my favourite music and my resentment for todays music. Waiting to see if they will publish it. If not, here's the product I wrote.
I'm a 90s baby born in 1993 and I grew up listening to AC/DC, Kiss, CCR, Great Big Sea, Loverboy, Meatloaf and so on, 3 decades of great music and suddenly that's starting to die out.
Sure we've got rock bands like Hedley, Billy Talent, Linkin Park and Green Day but they're just not the classic rock I grew up with and even they're dying out! So what are we left with?
Disney. Yes, The same people who gave us Micky Mouse, Peter Pan, and countless princesses are also giving us Miley Cyrus, Selina Gomez, Demi Lovato and The Jonas Brothers. And throw Justin Bieber in there and even though he's not owned by Disney he fits in this category. Now, "tweens" and other females from high school to women with children the same age as these "stars" all go crazy for them, mainly Bieber for reasons I and hundreds of men in the world will never understand, really, women would gladly turn into pedophiles for a chance at Justin Bieber.
Now I want to know how? How did this so called "pop" invade my TV and radio? I used to love Much Music but now I can't watch it. Not to be prejudiced or anything but Blacks don't even rap or do hip-hop on there anymore! They also sing pop because they're more or less targeted towards the women and men who appreciate it.
I forgot to mention other bands that like to call themselves "Metal". Sometimes I wonder about the validity of this being called music. At times it involved fast drumming, grinding guitars and people who scream into a microphone and no, it's not called singing. This music does not sound at all like music, it sounds like someone gave a baby instruments and told them to start playing.
The original metal also from the 60-90s was no doubt the best. From Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Motorhead and Metallica, you could understand the lyrics and they weren't about ripping someones throat out and eating their entrails which is the vibe I get from metal today.
Right now I'm listening to music on my TV where they just play music on a black screen for the most part. One channel I'm listening to is "Classic Rock" the other is "Remembering the 80s" where the good stuff is and believe me, it hasn't failed me once.
If you were given the opportunity to go back in time and destroy any trace of pop and make sure the classics were the future of music, would you take it?
Be sure to leave a comment or even an article about your opinion and your answer to the question =) Enjoy yourselves and make sure Rock and Roll never dies
I'm a 90s baby born in 1993 and I grew up listening to AC/DC, Kiss, CCR, Great Big Sea, Loverboy, Meatloaf and so on, 3 decades of great music and suddenly that's starting to die out.
Sure we've got rock bands like Hedley, Billy Talent, Linkin Park and Green Day but they're just not the classic rock I grew up with and even they're dying out! So what are we left with?
Disney. Yes, The same people who gave us Micky Mouse, Peter Pan, and countless princesses are also giving us Miley Cyrus, Selina Gomez, Demi Lovato and The Jonas Brothers. And throw Justin Bieber in there and even though he's not owned by Disney he fits in this category. Now, "tweens" and other females from high school to women with children the same age as these "stars" all go crazy for them, mainly Bieber for reasons I and hundreds of men in the world will never understand, really, women would gladly turn into pedophiles for a chance at Justin Bieber.
Now I want to know how? How did this so called "pop" invade my TV and radio? I used to love Much Music but now I can't watch it. Not to be prejudiced or anything but Blacks don't even rap or do hip-hop on there anymore! They also sing pop because they're more or less targeted towards the women and men who appreciate it.
I forgot to mention other bands that like to call themselves "Metal". Sometimes I wonder about the validity of this being called music. At times it involved fast drumming, grinding guitars and people who scream into a microphone and no, it's not called singing. This music does not sound at all like music, it sounds like someone gave a baby instruments and told them to start playing.
The original metal also from the 60-90s was no doubt the best. From Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Motorhead and Metallica, you could understand the lyrics and they weren't about ripping someones throat out and eating their entrails which is the vibe I get from metal today.
Right now I'm listening to music on my TV where they just play music on a black screen for the most part. One channel I'm listening to is "Classic Rock" the other is "Remembering the 80s" where the good stuff is and believe me, it hasn't failed me once.
If you were given the opportunity to go back in time and destroy any trace of pop and make sure the classics were the future of music, would you take it?
Be sure to leave a comment or even an article about your opinion and your answer to the question =) Enjoy yourselves and make sure Rock and Roll never dies
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Next Article: Are we losing our sensitivity towards others? UPDATE
Hello, I was recently on Facebook and saw a comment someone made on a group and it gave me inspiration to drop my other two articles I was working on to write an article about it and you get to be the first to read it until ViewsHound accepts or rejects it.
THE UPDATE:
It was just published not long ago, along with the RMS Atlantic poem which will be a sure loss. Wish me luck ;)
**First some background information**:
I was attempting to write my next article to submit to *ViewsHound* and decided to take a break and go on *Facebook* and there is a group on there that you can 'like' called "When I was your age, I was raising Pokemon, not babies" which I originally thought was just a page you click like and never see again but I was wrong, this actually it more about world news and things and the person who runs this page wrote:
*64% of Pakistanis didn't want Osama Bin Laden to die, 84% don't like the U.S...yet we give them BILLIONS of dollars in aid.*
Now that doesn't seem all that bad right? Well I had no problem with that, it was the comments people left towards the people of Pakistan including
"*they dont diserve a PENNY from us. Yay lest support the terrorists then send our troops over to be killed by the guns, mines, and bombs THAT WE payed for. lets destroy em and build em back up! what they shud do is nuke them mother f**ks and TAKE their oil.*"
I obviously responded back with a fairly long paragraph - and proper spelling - mainly about his insensitivity towards the people of Pakistan and greed of some Americans. But have we as humans lost our way of being humane?
First, we have never been strangers to being inhumane towards other people. We've been torturing, killing, burning and pillaging since we were just starting out as a race and we still are even today. The first example I could think of about nuking a country was Japan back in 1945 after the USA dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as revenge for Pearl Harbour. They obviously killed thousands of innocent men, women and children on that day which was most definitely a disregard to the people of Japan and Japanese people living in North America. Another example was the My Lai Massacre where American soldiers purposely killed innocent civilians by shooting them no matter who they were, even children, babies, and elders were murdered. This massacre also involved rape, beatings, torture and mutilation.
Two classic examples of insensitivity towards other cultures, Japan and Vietnam. If you watched old episodes from Looney Toons from the '30s and beyond you could also see racism and stereotypes towards everyone from Asians (a couple shorts about Japanese people), Blacks (Blackface), and Mexicans (Speedy Gonzales). I like to categorize insensitivity into two categories: Hatred, so you would rather want them dead, and Humour, just finding the comedy in stereotypes. Both are wrong in their own ways sure, but one is just to try and take the edge off of a serious topic and find the humour rooted in it.
Back on topic. This guy who posted the comment is wanting to send nuclear missiles to Pakistan and basically kill everyone there, innocent or not, young or old and then take the oil for their own "need" because Pakistan is just there, no one likes them so we don't need them or I assume these are his views anyway.
There was also that "Slut Walk" people were going on because of a police officer who said that if women didn't dress the way they did they wouldn't get raped, that's an example of insensitivity towards women here at home.
I personally believe that we as humans are most definitely turning insensitive towards others because of age, gender, etc. and we must battle this so we can finally live in peace with everyone without more bloodshed and emotional scars.
If they do reject it, I will be posting revised versions of this story because that's what it is, a story and not really an article.
Stay thirsty my friends ;)
THE UPDATE:
It was just published not long ago, along with the RMS Atlantic poem which will be a sure loss. Wish me luck ;)
**First some background information**:
I was attempting to write my next article to submit to *ViewsHound* and decided to take a break and go on *Facebook* and there is a group on there that you can 'like' called "When I was your age, I was raising Pokemon, not babies" which I originally thought was just a page you click like and never see again but I was wrong, this actually it more about world news and things and the person who runs this page wrote:
*64% of Pakistanis didn't want Osama Bin Laden to die, 84% don't like the U.S...yet we give them BILLIONS of dollars in aid.*
Now that doesn't seem all that bad right? Well I had no problem with that, it was the comments people left towards the people of Pakistan including
"*they dont diserve a PENNY from us. Yay lest support the terrorists then send our troops over to be killed by the guns, mines, and bombs THAT WE payed for. lets destroy em and build em back up! what they shud do is nuke them mother f**ks and TAKE their oil.*"
I obviously responded back with a fairly long paragraph - and proper spelling - mainly about his insensitivity towards the people of Pakistan and greed of some Americans. But have we as humans lost our way of being humane?
First, we have never been strangers to being inhumane towards other people. We've been torturing, killing, burning and pillaging since we were just starting out as a race and we still are even today. The first example I could think of about nuking a country was Japan back in 1945 after the USA dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as revenge for Pearl Harbour. They obviously killed thousands of innocent men, women and children on that day which was most definitely a disregard to the people of Japan and Japanese people living in North America. Another example was the My Lai Massacre where American soldiers purposely killed innocent civilians by shooting them no matter who they were, even children, babies, and elders were murdered. This massacre also involved rape, beatings, torture and mutilation.
Two classic examples of insensitivity towards other cultures, Japan and Vietnam. If you watched old episodes from Looney Toons from the '30s and beyond you could also see racism and stereotypes towards everyone from Asians (a couple shorts about Japanese people), Blacks (Blackface), and Mexicans (Speedy Gonzales). I like to categorize insensitivity into two categories: Hatred, so you would rather want them dead, and Humour, just finding the comedy in stereotypes. Both are wrong in their own ways sure, but one is just to try and take the edge off of a serious topic and find the humour rooted in it.
Back on topic. This guy who posted the comment is wanting to send nuclear missiles to Pakistan and basically kill everyone there, innocent or not, young or old and then take the oil for their own "need" because Pakistan is just there, no one likes them so we don't need them or I assume these are his views anyway.
There was also that "Slut Walk" people were going on because of a police officer who said that if women didn't dress the way they did they wouldn't get raped, that's an example of insensitivity towards women here at home.
I personally believe that we as humans are most definitely turning insensitive towards others because of age, gender, etc. and we must battle this so we can finally live in peace with everyone without more bloodshed and emotional scars.
If they do reject it, I will be posting revised versions of this story because that's what it is, a story and not really an article.
Stay thirsty my friends ;)
Friday, May 20, 2011
Another Winner!!
Hello everyone!
I just wanted to shout from the rooftops my second winner on ViewsHound!
The article Bullying: a harsh reality, the one that took 2 redos before it was accepted was chosen for the Bronze article of the day! I won another $20 USD which will probably be $15 CAD lol. I guess being turned down twice was actually a good decision =)
So thanks to everyone who helped me win this, I know it wasn't the Gold but hey, I'm unemployed and $20 can be good for me =P
You can scroll down a bit to find the article or go here: http://www.viewshound.com/lifestyle/2011/5/bullying-a-harsh-reality
I just wanted to shout from the rooftops my second winner on ViewsHound!
The article Bullying: a harsh reality, the one that took 2 redos before it was accepted was chosen for the Bronze article of the day! I won another $20 USD which will probably be $15 CAD lol. I guess being turned down twice was actually a good decision =)
So thanks to everyone who helped me win this, I know it wasn't the Gold but hey, I'm unemployed and $20 can be good for me =P
You can scroll down a bit to find the article or go here: http://www.viewshound.com/lifestyle/2011/5/bullying-a-harsh-reality
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Woot!
Hello whoever may be reading this!
This morning my mother came into my room to wake me up for school (trust me, alarms will not wake me up, I've tried.) and tells me that I won the photo of the day on ViewsHound! I was very happy although I didn't show it because it was a good 5 seconds after waking me up and I was freakin' tired.
Now, the photo was a sunset from my deck which I can put into this post at the end. It also had the silhouette of an eagle carving we have.
What ViewsHound had to say? "Warm tones and great use of the silhouette to frame the scene."
Coming from professionals, that's a damn good compliment if I say so myself ;)
Thank you ViewsHound for picking me as a winner, and thank you viewers for reading my articles and looking at my photos, I'll enjoy the prize money ;)
Bully: a harsh reality update
So they published the article which is great =) But they also changed a bit about which makes me think they just got tired of me screwing up the writing and they just edit it for me lol. Either way I'm happy although I did not place in the articles of the day but I doubt they would really let me win twice in one day anyway.
Next up:
I have got another photo queued in so that's due to go live May 20, 2011, tomorrow if you're reading on the 19th. As for what it is, I will leave it to you to find out .
Thanks again for reading.
This morning my mother came into my room to wake me up for school (trust me, alarms will not wake me up, I've tried.) and tells me that I won the photo of the day on ViewsHound! I was very happy although I didn't show it because it was a good 5 seconds after waking me up and I was freakin' tired.
Now, the photo was a sunset from my deck which I can put into this post at the end. It also had the silhouette of an eagle carving we have.
What ViewsHound had to say? "Warm tones and great use of the silhouette to frame the scene."
Coming from professionals, that's a damn good compliment if I say so myself ;)
Thank you ViewsHound for picking me as a winner, and thank you viewers for reading my articles and looking at my photos, I'll enjoy the prize money ;)
Bully: a harsh reality update
So they published the article which is great =) But they also changed a bit about which makes me think they just got tired of me screwing up the writing and they just edit it for me lol. Either way I'm happy although I did not place in the articles of the day but I doubt they would really let me win twice in one day anyway.
Next up:
I have got another photo queued in so that's due to go live May 20, 2011, tomorrow if you're reading on the 19th. As for what it is, I will leave it to you to find out .
Thanks again for reading.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Poem: RMS Atlantic
As a little extra, I'll post this poem I wrote about a Nova Scotia shipwreck I'm hoping to get published on ViewHound (I'm quite an advertiser am I not?) I know it's not great or even good but a piece of work is a piece of work.
In the stormy night off Nova Scotia
The ship built so fine
Steering its way to the harbour
Ignoring the lighthouse shine
12 miles off course
Headed west of the dock
With plenty of force
Came a terrible shock
No note of the waters
No lookout to be seen
Men, women, sons and daughters
Soon came to a horrible scene
The Marr’s Head,
The deadly rock
Wanting them dead,
Put them all on the block
Of 900 on board
500 had died
Blood of the dead poured
While 300 survived
All women and children perished
All but one little boy
No memories will be cherished
No more small presents and toys
A crewman wasn’t a man
He went by the name of Bill
He could have been an Ann
Who came from the Ville
Being one of the guys
A right crew favourite
She looked up to the skies
And remembered to savour it
April 1, 1873
Marked the date
She descended to the sea
Taking the people and taking the freight
Taking it all and taking the weight
The weeks have come
The weeks have gone
The mood was glum
When the bodies were drawn
Many ships before her
Fell victim to the land
At the bottom, without a stir
Buried beneath the sand
The ships keep sailing
The sea keeps taking
Humans are failing
And the ships are breaking
Twenty five thousand wrecks
Scattered all around
Broken ships, broken decks
Waiting for the next to be downed
In the stormy night off Nova Scotia
The ship built so fine
Steering its way to the harbour
Ignoring the lighthouse shine
12 miles off course
Headed west of the dock
With plenty of force
Came a terrible shock
No note of the waters
No lookout to be seen
Men, women, sons and daughters
Soon came to a horrible scene
The Marr’s Head,
The deadly rock
Wanting them dead,
Put them all on the block
Of 900 on board
500 had died
Blood of the dead poured
While 300 survived
All women and children perished
All but one little boy
No memories will be cherished
No more small presents and toys
A crewman wasn’t a man
He went by the name of Bill
He could have been an Ann
Who came from the Ville
Being one of the guys
A right crew favourite
She looked up to the skies
And remembered to savour it
April 1, 1873
Marked the date
She descended to the sea
Taking the people and taking the freight
Taking it all and taking the weight
The weeks have come
The weeks have gone
The mood was glum
When the bodies were drawn
Many ships before her
Fell victim to the land
At the bottom, without a stir
Buried beneath the sand
The ships keep sailing
The sea keeps taking
Humans are failing
And the ships are breaking
Twenty five thousand wrecks
Scattered all around
Broken ships, broken decks
Waiting for the next to be downed
Bullying: a harsh reality
Now, this is what really made me excited: The following article was rejected from the ViewsHound.com website twice for reasons including the writing style wasn't formal enough and not enough depth into the background. Finally though they accepted it after 4 days (!!)
Bullying is unfortunately a common part of today’s life, and has been for a long while. It can be seen just about everywhere; schools, workplaces, and even public places such as malls and coffee shops.
Bullies, typically use three basic forms to torment their victims: physical, verbal, and emotional bullying.
Physical bullying includes punching, spitting, hair-pulling, kicking and slapping. This is the form that leaves physical evidence of abuse. If Johnny walked up and started hitting Joe in the face, that would be physical.
Verbal bullying includes name calling, yelling, and threatening. While it leaves no physical bruises, it results in a mental scar that is harder to heal. If Sally calls Suzie names behind her back then that is a form of bullying, even though it may not be said directly to Suzie.
Emotional bullying mainly occurs towards family or people in relationships. It can include threats of violence, suicide or even leaving the partner if he or she doesn't do what the other wants. If Jack tells Jill he is going to commit suicide if Jill leaves him, he is emotionally bullying her by trying to make her feel guilty in order to get his way.
Unfortunately suicide isn’t uncommon among people who have been bullied. Jenna Bowers, a beautiful, talented singer and songwriter from Nova Scotia, committed suicide because her peers were bullying her using the internet – cyber bullying. She was not alone; there were a several cases within a couple of months here in Nova Scotia.
Cyber bullying can take many forms. You may be familiar with a popular website called _Formspring_. Due to its option to allow users to remain anonymous while asking questions, the site has really opened the doors for even more cyber bullying.
What I personally would like to see is more laws against bullying. In my school, for example, if you are caught bullying you get a couple of days of suspension before you are back into normal classes, where you can just start bullying again. I believe older individuals, from middle school age and up, should be charged for bullying. If this was you, how would you react?
Thanks my friends for reading and please help battle bullying wherever you may be.
Bullying is unfortunately a common part of today’s life, and has been for a long while. It can be seen just about everywhere; schools, workplaces, and even public places such as malls and coffee shops.
Bullies, typically use three basic forms to torment their victims: physical, verbal, and emotional bullying.
Physical bullying includes punching, spitting, hair-pulling, kicking and slapping. This is the form that leaves physical evidence of abuse. If Johnny walked up and started hitting Joe in the face, that would be physical.
Verbal bullying includes name calling, yelling, and threatening. While it leaves no physical bruises, it results in a mental scar that is harder to heal. If Sally calls Suzie names behind her back then that is a form of bullying, even though it may not be said directly to Suzie.
Emotional bullying mainly occurs towards family or people in relationships. It can include threats of violence, suicide or even leaving the partner if he or she doesn't do what the other wants. If Jack tells Jill he is going to commit suicide if Jill leaves him, he is emotionally bullying her by trying to make her feel guilty in order to get his way.
Unfortunately suicide isn’t uncommon among people who have been bullied. Jenna Bowers, a beautiful, talented singer and songwriter from Nova Scotia, committed suicide because her peers were bullying her using the internet – cyber bullying. She was not alone; there were a several cases within a couple of months here in Nova Scotia.
Cyber bullying can take many forms. You may be familiar with a popular website called _Formspring_. Due to its option to allow users to remain anonymous while asking questions, the site has really opened the doors for even more cyber bullying.
What I personally would like to see is more laws against bullying. In my school, for example, if you are caught bullying you get a couple of days of suspension before you are back into normal classes, where you can just start bullying again. I believe older individuals, from middle school age and up, should be charged for bullying. If this was you, how would you react?
Thanks my friends for reading and please help battle bullying wherever you may be.
Should there be tougher laws for criminal minors?
This is my second article, written May 16, 2011 and went live May 18, 2011. This one relies heavily on personal opinion so I'd love to hear some
The Canadian law says that children under 12 years-old cannot be prosecuted for the act of _Mens Rea_, Latin for "guilty mind". In other words, they cannot be prosecuted because they don't know right from wrong.
Personally, I believe this should not apply in all cases. Obviously not ever minor is alike, and some are bound to know right from wrong. Myself, I knew right from wrong before I was 12. I knew that theft was wrong but I did it anyway - although it was Rice Krispies Squares in primary school, but wrong nonetheless. I know that I'm just one person and can't speak for anyone else, but I feel it is important to recognise that some minors know that stealing, bullying and sometimes even murder are wrong, and could have a guilty mind when carrying out those actions.
In my law class in high school we watched a film of an 11 year-old child who was committing numerous crimes, including theft, breaking and entering, drug use, bullying and assault with a deadly weapon (a revolver). In the film he says "They can't touch us, we're under 12" clearly indicating that he knows he's doing wrong, and he knows that he won't get into trouble because the law says he can't be prosecuted. I know it's just a movie, but it is based on a true story and I suspect there is some truth in it.
Mary Bell was a child killer. She, along with a friend, killed another child by strangulation when she was 10 years-old. They then broke into a nursery leaving notes claiming responsibility, but police passed it off as a prank. The second murder occurred when Bell was 11 years-old, again by strangulation, but she also used razors and scissors to mutilate the body. She was finally arrested a few months later and sentenced to an indefinite sentence of imprisonment for psychopathy and was released after 12 years.
What I would like to know is why so soon? She was diagnosed as showing "classic symptoms of psychopathy" and being a high risk to other children. Did she grow out of it at 23? It shows why we need tougher laws, because if a child kills two people and the law says we need to let them go, then something is obviously wrong.
Willie Bosket, who murdered in the 1970s while a minor, knew that the law would prevent his punishment. It was his crimes that changed laws in New York, meaning that children as young as 13 years-old could be charged in adult courts.
You know now that I think that, under certain circumstances, a child should be held responsible for _actus reas_ (the guilty act) along with _mens rea_, but what is your take on the situation? Are the laws fine the way they are? Are they too strict, or not strict enough?
The Canadian law says that children under 12 years-old cannot be prosecuted for the act of _Mens Rea_, Latin for "guilty mind". In other words, they cannot be prosecuted because they don't know right from wrong.
Personally, I believe this should not apply in all cases. Obviously not ever minor is alike, and some are bound to know right from wrong. Myself, I knew right from wrong before I was 12. I knew that theft was wrong but I did it anyway - although it was Rice Krispies Squares in primary school, but wrong nonetheless. I know that I'm just one person and can't speak for anyone else, but I feel it is important to recognise that some minors know that stealing, bullying and sometimes even murder are wrong, and could have a guilty mind when carrying out those actions.
In my law class in high school we watched a film of an 11 year-old child who was committing numerous crimes, including theft, breaking and entering, drug use, bullying and assault with a deadly weapon (a revolver). In the film he says "They can't touch us, we're under 12" clearly indicating that he knows he's doing wrong, and he knows that he won't get into trouble because the law says he can't be prosecuted. I know it's just a movie, but it is based on a true story and I suspect there is some truth in it.
Mary Bell was a child killer. She, along with a friend, killed another child by strangulation when she was 10 years-old. They then broke into a nursery leaving notes claiming responsibility, but police passed it off as a prank. The second murder occurred when Bell was 11 years-old, again by strangulation, but she also used razors and scissors to mutilate the body. She was finally arrested a few months later and sentenced to an indefinite sentence of imprisonment for psychopathy and was released after 12 years.
What I would like to know is why so soon? She was diagnosed as showing "classic symptoms of psychopathy" and being a high risk to other children. Did she grow out of it at 23? It shows why we need tougher laws, because if a child kills two people and the law says we need to let them go, then something is obviously wrong.
Willie Bosket, who murdered in the 1970s while a minor, knew that the law would prevent his punishment. It was his crimes that changed laws in New York, meaning that children as young as 13 years-old could be charged in adult courts.
You know now that I think that, under certain circumstances, a child should be held responsible for _actus reas_ (the guilty act) along with _mens rea_, but what is your take on the situation? Are the laws fine the way they are? Are they too strict, or not strict enough?
The school system: does it really work?
This was my first article I've ever written! I wrote it May 14, 2011 and I was quite proud of it =P
Being a high school student I've always wondered about the school system - if it really works for the student, and if they really think at all about your abilities. I first passed it off as being a rebellious phase, but coming close to failing math on more than one occasion I started to wonder: do they care about my abilities or do they just teach how they're told to teach?
In Canada, if a student gets 40% in a class (an ‘F’ in American terms) then they fail the class, no questions asked. Luckily, if it's English or math they can take the next level down, until they reach the level they can pass. But what about other subjects?
A lot of students in my school, knowing they will fail if they go into the conventional education system, decide to enrol in the Career Education Program (CEP). This program allows them to get straight into a trade such as mechanics, wood working, or cooking. So luckily for them they're pretty much set right up to graduate and even win academic awards for their smarts.
Now, I'm not saying everyone in CEP is "dumb" or "stupid". I'm sure they're smart in other fields, such as the trade they are studying. I've been labelled as stupid by the people I call friends because I haven't got a math mind. It's mostly my attitude: I know I will never use it, so it's not important.
My concern is with classes such as social studies, science and technology, in which not everybody has the mental capacity to learn as quickly as others. Passing these subjects is mandatory for a student to graduate. As they treat everybody the same, some are bound to fail because they’re being taught above their level, and not in way which is suitable for them as an individual.
So, how about the schools in your area? Whether it's another part of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom or even Japan? Do you see the same sort of effect where students are taught how the school board expects, or do they adapt the teaching to help students on their own level?
Being a high school student I've always wondered about the school system - if it really works for the student, and if they really think at all about your abilities. I first passed it off as being a rebellious phase, but coming close to failing math on more than one occasion I started to wonder: do they care about my abilities or do they just teach how they're told to teach?
In Canada, if a student gets 40% in a class (an ‘F’ in American terms) then they fail the class, no questions asked. Luckily, if it's English or math they can take the next level down, until they reach the level they can pass. But what about other subjects?
A lot of students in my school, knowing they will fail if they go into the conventional education system, decide to enrol in the Career Education Program (CEP). This program allows them to get straight into a trade such as mechanics, wood working, or cooking. So luckily for them they're pretty much set right up to graduate and even win academic awards for their smarts.
Now, I'm not saying everyone in CEP is "dumb" or "stupid". I'm sure they're smart in other fields, such as the trade they are studying. I've been labelled as stupid by the people I call friends because I haven't got a math mind. It's mostly my attitude: I know I will never use it, so it's not important.
My concern is with classes such as social studies, science and technology, in which not everybody has the mental capacity to learn as quickly as others. Passing these subjects is mandatory for a student to graduate. As they treat everybody the same, some are bound to fail because they’re being taught above their level, and not in way which is suitable for them as an individual.
So, how about the schools in your area? Whether it's another part of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom or even Japan? Do you see the same sort of effect where students are taught how the school board expects, or do they adapt the teaching to help students on their own level?
Introduction
Hello, my name is Matthew Maclean. I'm 18 years old in my final year of high school and my goal of this blog is to try and bring awareness to my articles that I attempt to get published on http://www.viewshound.com/. As of now I have two articles published, one being published tomorrow (May 19, 2011) and two pictures.
I should explain my articles: I am more of a writer of things that involve opinions such as ways to stop and prevent bullying, whether children under 12 should get away with crimes and whether schools are doing their job of teaching everyone on the level of individuality.
I greatly welcome constructive criticism about my writing ability and how I can improve to be more beneficial to myself and the readers alike so it looks professional and formal and also so people can understand what it is I'm writing. I will also accept any insults that come my way as long as they are logical and don't sound like "ur a stupid reterd hu cant rite 4 beanz" Those (Ha, writing that made me spell 'thouse' at first) comments will be ignored. Also, by insults I mean more of a debate of your views and then mind, and so on and so forth.
So I hope to see lots of traffic here of people who are genuinely interested in what I have to say and not people who are here to troll or advertise their own blogs only. You can advertise but leave a comment about my blog first ;)
Thanks and I hope I can get you to come back again =)
-Matthew
I should explain my articles: I am more of a writer of things that involve opinions such as ways to stop and prevent bullying, whether children under 12 should get away with crimes and whether schools are doing their job of teaching everyone on the level of individuality.
I greatly welcome constructive criticism about my writing ability and how I can improve to be more beneficial to myself and the readers alike so it looks professional and formal and also so people can understand what it is I'm writing. I will also accept any insults that come my way as long as they are logical and don't sound like "ur a stupid reterd hu cant rite 4 beanz" Those (Ha, writing that made me spell 'thouse' at first) comments will be ignored. Also, by insults I mean more of a debate of your views and then mind, and so on and so forth.
So I hope to see lots of traffic here of people who are genuinely interested in what I have to say and not people who are here to troll or advertise their own blogs only. You can advertise but leave a comment about my blog first ;)
Thanks and I hope I can get you to come back again =)
-Matthew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)