North Korea against the World

North and South Korean Flags

In the article, "Korean War Part 2?" Choe Sang-Hun brings to light the possibilities that there might be another World War. She talks about North Korea and their current leader, Kim Jong Un. The article talks about the differences between North and South Korea. North Korea is secretive, and they have a Communist government. On the other hand, South Korea is vibrant, and democracy is their government system. Finally, North Korea is poor while South Korea is rich.

The article states that their could be another World War due to the threats of Kim Jong Un. He threatens to shoot a missile at the U.S. or South Korea. However, the article also states that he's unpredictable. One day he's saying that he will shoot it, and another, he's saying that he would never do such a thing.

No one really knows what his intentions are. They could be just to scare us, or maybe he's just a coward.

I have no clue what to think of this. This article is saying that there might be another World War, while people everywhere else are saying that the missile would never hit the U.S. That's just the situation of the missile. My opinions of Kim? He's scared of the U.S. He just wants to try and be a threat to the U.S. because the U.S. is such a threat to him. In all reality, he's just a coward. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I don't care! They are just my OPINIONS!

Also, I think that the way the U.S. is responding is great. They are sitting down, not making a move. Usually we would shoot them before they shot us, but what they are doing, I feel is the right thing. Sure, if the missile actually does hit us, then they should do something. They should also have a little something prepared if it does happen. Maybe sitting back is them being scared, but it doesn't matter, this is how you do it. Eventually Kim will see that we don't want any problems, and the possibilities of another War will be over. Again, these are just my opinions!

Raise in Minimum Wage

In the article, "Time for a Raise," Patricia Smith talks about Obama's decision to raise minimum wage. He wants to raise it from $7.25 to $9.00. If he gets his way, this will be the first raise since 2009. Smith quotes Obama saying, "This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank, rent or eviction, scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets."

Of course, there are people who oppose the decision. Companies that hire low-wage workers have opposed this decision because it will increase the cost of doing business. "Small employers have to operate under very slim profit margins. An increase has to be shouldered by the employer." Randy Johnson says. Johnson is of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents business.

This article was basically saying that if minimum wage goes up, it can help workers, but can kind of hurt the business's profit. It can hurt the business's profit because they would have to pay expenses + an expensive worker. That would bring in less of a profit.

I think a raise is a good idea. It's a good idea because people deserve it. People work hard and don't earn as much as they deserve. And though $9/hour is still not enough, the raise would show a little bit of sympathy.

I feel like those who are against it are stingy. They don't want to share a little bit of money with their workers, who are most likely diligent. Granted, not all workers deserve this raise, but that's not what the business owners are looking at. Business owners' complaints are about the profit. Yes, this is important, but that's honestly not a good reason to try to get yourself out of a raise. It seems like every time Obama wants something good for the middle class, the rich people always are against it. Not all of them, but enough to make sure this decision doesn't get passed. I just don't think it's fair. The rich have A LOT OF MONEY! Giving a few extra dollars will not hurt them!

I looked at this article differently. I looked at the excuses people had. "Excuses are tools of the incompetent." Think about it....

Kevin Ware's Sickening Injury (choice blog)

The article, "Kevin Ware breaks bone in leg," the author talks about the gruesome injury suffered by Louisville Cardinals' Kevin Ware. It says that his right leg was bent in a really weird way. Cardinals' coach, Rick Pitino and some teammates were weeping, Pitino wiping away tears.

A lot of people wonder how this happened. The article says that Ware was trying to block a 3 point shot by the opposite team, Duke, and fell at about a right angle. His leg buckled, and broke. His bone was sticking 6 inches out of his leg, but, according to Pitino, all he was saying was, "Win the game, win the game." Pitino says that he has never seen anything like that in his life.

The article also states that all of his teammates were in shock, too. Even people from the other team. Ware's teammate and closest friend, Chane Behanan said that Ware was saying, "Don't worry about me, I'm good, I'll have my surgery tonight. Go win it for me." The article says that the team had a hard time regaining strength at first, but that they found it, and won for Ware.

I watched the game with my family on Easter. We were all screaming and yelling when we saw his bone. My cousin and I cried like little babies. It was painful to watch, so I can't imagine what it felt like to him, and those who were actually there. After reading the article, I found what Ware was shouting about. Now, knowing that he wanted the game to go on and wasn't even worried about his leg, I think that he is a strong young man, and a great teammate.

I can't begin to imagine if I were put in this situation. If my bone was sticking 6 inches out of my leg, I'd be yelling and screaing out in agony. Yes, I'm a girl, but does gender really matter when your bone is sticking out of your leg? I get the itchies just thinking about it. The video is at the bottom.
*WARNING: WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION! VERY, VERY GRAPHIC!

Woman In Combat

In the article "Sister in Arms," James Dao talks about the Pentagon's decision to remove the ban from women fighting in combat. This means that now, women are allowed to actually fight in wars.

Dao opens the article up with the story of Staff Sergeant Stacy Pearsall's unit. Her unit came under attack while they were cleaning up roadside bombs. Out of nowhere, they were in the middle of a firefight. The male soldiers rushed out to join the fight, so, Sgt. Pearsall jumped into a machine gun and began to fire. In the midst of all of this, she realized that one of her soldiers had fallen. She crawled to the 6-foot-2, over 200 pounded man, and even though he was twice her size, she dragged him to safety. This proves that women are way more incredible than we think.

The article says that there are many reasons why people thought that women in combat would have been a bad idea. According to the article, one reason is that people would have looked at women dying differently than the men dying. For example, if a woman died, poeple would have cried saying "Oh my gosh, she was a mother, and sister," and stuff of that manner. However, the article says, people have been looking at women deaths the same way they look at men deaths.

The article gives a little history of women in war, and how some of them persevered so much. From 1861-1865, it says that women would dress as men to fight. That's how much they wanted to serve their country.

I feel as though women are strong enough to do anything they put their mind to. I'm not trying to sound like those sexists in the world, but whatever men can do, women can do a little better. I don't mean it like "women are better then men." What I'm saying is, when most women are doing a task, they get it done, with a greater outcome, but only because they usually put their minds to it. This leads me to the point that, if women really want to fight in wars, they will get the outcome they want, and it will be greater because of the perserverence to do it.

Do I think that this was a smart idea? Yes and no. Yes because, now women can show how strong they are and won't get negatively judged. However, I'm one of those people who will cry and say that she was mother and stuff like that. It's a win-lose situation in my eyes. At least the women are happy.




 

She's NEW!! (choice blog)

In the article "Paris Jackson Flaunts New Rocker Haircut, Dagger-Like Earring on Twitter," Josh Grossberg brings to light the daughter of Michael Jackson's new look.

According to the article, Paris Jackson, 14, gave herself a new makeover that seems nothing like the Paris we all grew to know.

Jackson showed off a more "out-there" look on Twitter that included a close-cropped punk hairstyle, a new, dagger-style earring and body art on the upper part of her back and right upper arm. To finish it all, she wore a  ripped Pink Floyd T-shirt. The article then states that, while her brother, Prince, will begin acting, she might stay in her father's footsteps; developing a music career.

In my opinion, I think she is really pretty. Do I agree with her choice of style, not exactly. It is pretty, but I think she misses her father. I feel as though she's doing all of this for the attention her father used to give her. I'm not one to judge, especially because my opinion might not be right. Maybe she's just expressing her emotions by changing her appearance. Maybe she really likes her new look, and just wants to show her fun and spunky side. I I don't know. Like the article said, this Paris is nothing like the Paris we have grown to know....
 

Canoodling; your doing it wrong

"Historically Incorrect Canoodling," brings to light the history of Valentine's Day. Stephanie Coontz, the auhtor, says that Valentine's Day was never really about romance. It was actually used to replace Lupercalia, the night when boys drew girls' names and they were their sexual partner for the year.

As most people know, Valentine's Day was named after a Christian priest named Valentine. Legends say that he was executed for conducting marriages for Roman soldiers. Another legend is that he fell in love with his jailor's daughter, and wrote her a moving and touching letter signed "from your Valentine."

However, when the church made Feb. 14 St. Valentine's feast day in 498 A.D., they were not trying to celebrate romance, and love. The church really wanted replace the holiday honoring the Roman goddess of love and marriage, Juno. They also wanted to replace Lupercalia Eve, the night boys would draw female names, and those girls would be their mate for the year. The church didn't like things like this, and not because it preferred love-based courtship (marriage).

The article says that, actually, love isn't prevalent in the first 1500 years of church history. A 12th-century authority wrote, "no one disapproves when a gentle and honest sentiment softens the bonds of a marriage, but it is not the role of marriage to inspire such a feeling." In other words, love wasn't the role to inspire marriage. Pope Gregory the Great wrote, "while marriage was not technically sinful, the carnal pleasure that husband and wife get from from sex cannot, under any circumstances, be without blame." This basically meant that the only reason why people got married was because of sex.

People, then, warned young people to try to stay away from love and marriage, but like today, the young people didn't listen. It was around 200 years ago that people changed Valentine's Day into what it is celebrated as today.

In my opinion, I really don't like the way it was celebrated back then. It seemed all too strict, and boring. Nowadays, it had more spice and sensualness to it. If I were put in the predicament of females back then, I would honestly have to kill myself. What it the boy that picked me was ugly, or didn't smell too right, or wasn't smart enough, or was just disrespectful? I would not be able to go through that. Also, I would like to go back in time and thank whoever changed Valentine's Day into what it is. It's fun, and cute, and more celebrational! I like celebrations! Who agrees?

Dogs can drive ( upfront choice blog)

In the article, "But Can They Parallel Park?" the author brings to light a puppy's newest talent; driving.

The article says that dogs already have multiple abilities. For example, they can rescue people, sniff out drugs, detect oil spills, and even detect some cancers. Now, they will be able to add the ability of driving.

Porter, Monty, and Ginny, were taught by animal-rescue workers in New Zealand, how to drive an SUV after eight weeks of intensive training. The dogs were waiting to be adopted, so the workers taught them how to drive, just to show how smart they really are. The workers used a training method called "operant conditioning." The dogs were rewarded for repeatedly sterring and changin gears, and soon enough, they learned how to drive.

This completely amazes me! Dogs are great at a lot of things, and now some of them know how to drive? At first, I thought the picture of Porter sitting in the driving seat was photoshopped or fake, but when I read on, I said, "Oh snap! That's decent!" I find it crazy how dogs can already do nice things, and now they can drive! With the ability to sniff out drugs and drive, the might as well become police officers. Who else agrees!!??!!