In "Trouble in Ukraine" by Andrea Delblanco, the author writes about the conflicts that have been going on in Ukraine recently. The president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, has been removed from power after being in office from 2010-2014. He has been steering the country wrong for a long while now, and protesters clashing with police is causing a lot of problems.
This November, Yanukovych refused to sign a trade agreement with Europe, but then signed a "loan deal" with Russia. This sparked peaceful protests for new elections and better government in Ukraine. Then the police got involved. In my opinion, the police should have just left the protesters alone as long as they weren't violent. But conflict with the police led to "80 protesters dead and hundreds wounded", according to the article. After the violence, the president still refused to step down even after losing support from the military and Parliament. He fled Ukraine and went to Russia, a country that has offered him protection, probably because of the loan deal he made with them. After their president had left, Ukrainians looked into Yanukovych's home and found that it was obviously the home of someone extremely wealthy, even though the country was struggling with corruption.
I think that this article was unbiased, it just gave the facts. I, however, am very biased on this issue. I think both the president of Ukraine and the president of Russia are awful people. Viktor Yanukovych is a coward for leaving his country without stepping down (I'm glad he finally did). He should have been helping his country and rebuilding his government when instead he was just sending out police to repress protesters and sitting in his palace. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is also a complete jerk. He protected Ukraine's president, for one thing, and he's also hugely and actively homophobic and has enforced homophobic laws in his country, according to various sources.
Even though this article had no opinion on the "trouble in Ukraine", I definitely did.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
"America"- Poem Reading Response 1st Draft
Living in America is often portrayed as a privilege, but for many people, such as immigrants, it is also a huge struggle. In the poem "America" by Claude McKay, the speaker feels that America's challenges make him/her a stronger person, therefore giving him/her strength to stand against all the problems and the hate in the country.
In the poem, the speaker is obviously facing problems in America. S/he describes these problems in very colorful ways. For example, "...she feeds me bread of bitterness/ And sinks into my throat her tiger's tooth..." (assuming "she" is America). The speaker could possibly be an immigrant, seeing that immigrants go through a lot in this country. The speaker could also be a person of color, a non-straight person, someone in poverty, or someone in any type of group that has a hard time living in the US because of discrimination or lack of resources. Despite this, towards the end of the poem, the speaker says "Darky I gaze into the days ahead/ And see her might and granite wonders...". This shows that while things might be bad now, the speaker has hope for America.
Even with all the challenges, in the poem, it is shown that the speaker likes America in a way. For example, "I love this cultured hell that tests my youth!". "Cultured hell" is an oxymoron, showing the strange nature of the relationship between the speaker and the country. I also think the speaker refuses to fear America, and will only let it's problems make him/her stronger. For example, s/he says "I stand within her walls with not a shred/ Of terror, malice, not a word of jeer". This means the speaker will not fear, hate, or tease America because of what it’s done to him/her.
America is a complicated place, with it’s privileges and problems. The speaker adresses this in the poem “America”, and doesn’t let the problems get to her. I think the speaker knows that letting the country beat him/her down won’t do him/her any good, so s/he only grows stronger from his/her experiences.
Monday, January 20, 2014
"Rethinking Juvenile Justice"- Reading Response
In "Rethinking Juvenile Justice" by John Schwartz, the author addresses the issue of children (people under age 18) being charged as an adult for their crimes. In the 80's and 90's, crack was a popular drug, and the government was desperately making more laws to get juveniles tried as adults for their more violent crimes. But now the country is moving in the other direction. Experts say that jailing younger kids with adult criminals could do more harm than good. The state of Colorado has started making some serious changes to their crime punishment laws, and nearly half of the US had already done so or followed along. Local areas, cities like Washington and New York, are trying to get kids out of the court system altogether for more minor crimes.
This article definitely leans towards kids not being tried for adult crimes. I think the author wants the reader to be informed about the issue and against underage kids being put in adult jails. A harsh example of the worst effects of underage people being in jail is that in 2012, there were two child suicides in Colorado adult jails, including a 17-year-old named James Stewart, who was put in jail for driving drunk and killing another driver. A psychology professor, Laurence Steinberg is quoted, saying "Ninety percent of teen offenders do not become adult criminals". This is probably because at that age, kids' brains aren't fully developed. This shows that most child criminals who are put in adult jails for their crimes don't need or deserve what they must endure in these prisons. The Supreme court had been working on eliminating the more harsh punishments for juveniles for a long time; punishments such as "the death penalty, and life without parole", according to the article. The death penalty was rid of the juvenile court system in 2005, and life without parole was rid of in 2012.
23 states have already passed laws to keep juveniles out of the adult court system. I think that this is a good thing for the US. Since the government is always looking for ways to cut costs, throwing juveniles in jail is a "less attractive" option, as put by the author of the article. Personally, I think that most juveniles should not be put into adult jail. Some kids definitely deserve it, like rapists and murderers. I strongly believe it's very unfair to give a rapist, even a child one, only a couple years in juvi until they can be let loose to possibly do more harm. But I think it's a little different for child murderers. For a person, especially one under eighteen, to kill another person is a sure sign of poor mental health. If the child does have a mental disorder, they of course still need to be detained, but with therapy and possibly less harsh care. Also, like in James Stewart's case, it could be an accidental murder, like a drunk car crash. Overall, though most kids who commit certain crimes should not be tried as adults, it's very dangerous to have people like rapists and murderers out on the streets at all, children or not.
This article definitely leans towards kids not being tried for adult crimes. I think the author wants the reader to be informed about the issue and against underage kids being put in adult jails. A harsh example of the worst effects of underage people being in jail is that in 2012, there were two child suicides in Colorado adult jails, including a 17-year-old named James Stewart, who was put in jail for driving drunk and killing another driver. A psychology professor, Laurence Steinberg is quoted, saying "Ninety percent of teen offenders do not become adult criminals". This is probably because at that age, kids' brains aren't fully developed. This shows that most child criminals who are put in adult jails for their crimes don't need or deserve what they must endure in these prisons. The Supreme court had been working on eliminating the more harsh punishments for juveniles for a long time; punishments such as "the death penalty, and life without parole", according to the article. The death penalty was rid of the juvenile court system in 2005, and life without parole was rid of in 2012.
23 states have already passed laws to keep juveniles out of the adult court system. I think that this is a good thing for the US. Since the government is always looking for ways to cut costs, throwing juveniles in jail is a "less attractive" option, as put by the author of the article. Personally, I think that most juveniles should not be put into adult jail. Some kids definitely deserve it, like rapists and murderers. I strongly believe it's very unfair to give a rapist, even a child one, only a couple years in juvi until they can be let loose to possibly do more harm. But I think it's a little different for child murderers. For a person, especially one under eighteen, to kill another person is a sure sign of poor mental health. If the child does have a mental disorder, they of course still need to be detained, but with therapy and possibly less harsh care. Also, like in James Stewart's case, it could be an accidental murder, like a drunk car crash. Overall, though most kids who commit certain crimes should not be tried as adults, it's very dangerous to have people like rapists and murderers out on the streets at all, children or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)