Minorities are becoming the majority

We have an African-American president.
This is saying that the minorities don't have to be
minor.

In the article, "The New Face Of America," Veronica Majerol brings to light the facts of the minorities of the U.S. are becoming the majority.

In the U.S., the majority is white Americans. However, demographics show that this is slowly changing. The demographics are showing that other races are becoming the majority. Latino-American, African-American, Chinese-American, and other races are becoming the majority.

The article states that whites are still the majority, but by 2042, minorities might outnumber whites. It says that there are several factors as to why this is happening.

First, within the last 30 years, immigration to the U.S. has been high. Especially from countries like Mexico, China, India and the Philippines. This started because of the Immigration Act, which allowed more immigrants to come over here outside of Europe.

The second reason is because whites have lower birth-rates than people who are not white. In other words, the white population is having less babies than other races.

Finally, whites are getting older, and old people tend to have fewer babies.

Another reason why this is happening is because the social changes. Mixed-race marriages are growing, and so are mixed-race children.

In my opinion, I find it cool that this is happening. I always knew that whites were the majority, but the fact that this is changing amazes me. First of all, I amazed that that white and blacks can get together and have children. I also find it cool that there are other minorities other than just blacks. There are Latino, Chinese, even Egyptian. My step-siblings are mixed-raced. One of their races is Egyptian. It's just cool that something like this is happening.

I also think it's amazing that the minorities are becoming stronger and more powerful in the world. We have a black president, a Hispanic in Supreme Court, a Taiwanese cofounder of Youtube, and a Indian in comedy. It's cool.

Should Lance Armstrong be forgiven?

In  the artilce, "Give Lance another chance?" the author talks about people's opinion on Lance Armstrong's situation.

Frida Ghitis feels as though he can redeem himself. She, like a lot of other people, is angry that he lied, but she feels that he still has a chance. A chance to tell the world the cost of living in a lie.

Roxanne Jones, however, feels that he's not trustworthy. She says that, yes, he may be deeply sorry, but she can't trust him after he lied. She said that it's not just the fact that he lied, but the fact that he lied for more than a decade.

Kevin Powell thinks that he was just being a human. He says that we all have flaws, and that he's not judging Lance. Yes, he lived in a lie for a long time, but he made a mistake, fust like we make mistakes.

Honestly, I don't even know about Lance's situation, I never even heard of him. However, I'm like Kevin on the whole topic. It seems like, just because he's famous, he can't make mistakes. Yes, he lived his life in a lie, but he has apologized, publicly. It takes a whole lot of confidence to come out of a lie, from that long, and to be treated this way, it hurts. I mean, no one is going to forgive him over night, no, but if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say it all. It's okay to express your feelings about him, but do it in a way that is respectful, and in a way that will actually help him become a better person.

What he did was wrong, and he knows that, so the people from the outside world should not be criticizing him so much. That's all I have to say about it.

Syrian Civil War

In the article "Civil War in Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene," the author brigns to light the harms of the U.S. troops getting harmed if they intervene in the Syrian Civil War.

There have been threats from Syria saying that they will bomb the troops if they intervene, and that would be terrible. They also threat to use chemical weapons, which is when the U.S. says that they will have to intervene.

In my opinion, I think the U.S. is going to intervene no matter what. They always go and take over wars anywhere, and most of the time, they have nothing to do with us. However, I think it's dangerous either way. For one, if Syria bombed our troops, the families of the troops would be hurt. If they plan to use chemical weapons, I guess our troops could use their chemical weapons. Either way, the outcome won't be good. Which is why I don't like war. War doesn't think about other families, and the worst case scenario. All they think about is winning...but what happens when they don't win?

Children's play time is important, parents are taking it away

In the article, "All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed," Esther Entin brings to light the problems of children who are not getting enough playtime.

Entin says that children who don't get enough play end up depressed, and nervous/anxious. She said that when you don't let your child make choices on their own, or when you keep them all wrapped up in safety, that they won't really understand what happens when they get older, therefore they get depressed.

Entin also stated that according to Peter Gray, "Since about 1955...children's free play has been continually declining, at least partly because adults have exerted ever-increasing control over children's activities." Gray has a Ph.D, Professor of Psychology (emeritus) at Boston Eollege.

Entin also brings to light what is interfering with children's play. The answer; parents who are basically controlling on what their children do. "It is hard to find groups of children outdoors at all," Gray says, "and, if you do find them, they are likely to be wearing uniforms and following the directions of coaches while their parents dutifully watch and cheer." There's a study saying that comparing 1981 and 1997, the children of 1981 played so much more.

Another study says that mothers are the reason why play time has decrease. In a survey, most mothers say that they are afraid of sexual predators, bullies, and traffic.

In this case, I'd have to agree with the mothers. The world has gotten crazy since way back when, and there are more problems to worry about. For example, there are sexual predators, murderers, and bullies. If you let your child outside, and something bad happens, all hell breaks loose. So what's the point of letting them outside if all you can do is worry.

However, there is a better way. Instead of interfering with the child, sit somewhere close to them, and if somethiong seems suspicious, that's when the parent walks in. Don't make all the choices for them.

Also, I hate when people compare back then to now. Things have changed, so why would you compare them. Back then, you could trust people, now, anyone can be a predator. Some people say "Same poop, different toilet." That may be true, but back in the day, the poop was lighter.....

Sandy Hook, devistating

On December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School, things were going normal. It was a , normal school day. However, at 9:35 things were to drastically change/

Adam Lanza, 20, was first at home, where he shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, 52, in the head 4 times with a .22 Marlin rifle. He then went to wheer his mother taught at; Sandy Hook Elementary. It was around 9:35 that he shot down the doors of Sandy Hook, and apparently went shot two administrators. Then, he went to his mother's classroom, and shot 15 out of 16 children dead. The survivor, a six year old girl, said that she played dead until she knew everything was over. Then, after wounding 2 more women, and killing 2 more teachers, it is said that he commited suicide and shot  himself in the head before authorities arrived.

It is also said that Adam did this because of all the attention his mother was giving her class and not him. His brother told sources this.

In my opinion, which is probably like other's opinion, this is terrible. First of all, he was 20 years old. Wanting attention from his mother at this age makes him seem like a little kid. Also, if he did want attetnion, why would he kill his mother? On top of that, because you killed your mother, who was the reason you were angry, why would you kill the children? They didn't ask for the attention! He knew he was wrong, because he shot himself afterwards. Therefore, no one can blame this on a disease, or mental disability. Which I find very interesting. Because he was Caucasian, they tried to make it seem like he had a mental disabilty, but if he was African-American, he would have been a cold blooded, sinister man. That's very funny to me.

That's honestly how I feel.

Regulation of guns

Before I begin this article, I'd like to say that regulating something means you create rules for it.

In the article, "Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" Nicholas D. Kristof brings to light the idea of regulating guns. He gives a statistic that children from age 5 to 14 are 13 times more likely to be murdered with guns. Kristof also said that we know that the U.S. won't ban guns, but can at least create rules to reduce the murders.

He said that children in American schools have safety in school with codes and what not. Also, that the buses are double-checked for saftey and that even the food from the cafeteria is checked for saftey. However, Kristof feels as though we don't care much for the things that are more likely to kill us.

Kristof states that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a five page book on regualtions of ladders, but shrugs at the thought of regulating firearms. Ladders kill about 300 Americans a year, whereas guns, 30,000. I think you can see where he was going.

Kristof compares regukating guns to the way cars are regulated. "I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we accept that we must wear seqat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms to buy a car. Why can't we be equally adult about regulating guns?" Kristoff said. Basically, he's saying that if we can buy cars, and accept the rules that go along with that, why can't we buy a gun with the same type system.

Later in the article, Kristof says that people often say that it's not the gun that kills people, but it's the crazy or psycho who does it. However, he said that when someone get's in a car accident, we don't shrug and say "Cars don't kill people, drunks do."

I agree that we should regulate guns. Like Kristof said, the U.S. won't ban guns, so why can't we just have a few rules to make the possess of guns safer. I liked the way he compared the regulations of cars to regulating guns. It showed how simple it would be to regulate guns. However, not all people follow the rules of driving (which is why we have drunk drivers.) With that being said, if people don't always follow the rules of driving, why would they follow the rules of possessing a gun.

With all of that being said, I guess I'm in the middle of the idea of regulating guns. If we do, people might feel safer, but in all reality, not all people will follow the rules. So it's like, we regulate them, but what's the point?