After reading “Why nothing is 'Wrong ' Anymore" by Meg Greenfield, she made a great point when she said " As a guide and a standard to live by, you don 't hear so much about "right and wrong" these days." She is absolutely right and I didn 't come to realize this until I read her story. Meg Greenfield listed a few examples of some substations for saying wrong. One example she used is Right and stupid. Greenfield explains that people typically use this one when someone gets caught stealing or does something reprehensible. People today are constantly making excuses for their actions instead of admitting that they were wrong. There were a few points Greenfield spoke about that really caught my attention such as: Right and sick, Right and not …show more content…
Right and not necessarily unconstitutional means just because it falls into the legal limits does not mean it isn 't wrong. Something that is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable. An example of that is leaving pets in locked cars. Leaving your pet in a car is not illegal yet leaving your child in a car is. It 's just as dangerous leaving a person 's dog unattended in a car and ends in the same result as if you were to leave your child unattended a car. Not having seat belts on school buses is another example of something that is legal but should not be. Schools have small children on buses and can be just as dangerous as a small car. Buses can easily tip over when the driver is going to fast or turning too sharply and the bus could tip over and cause harm to the children. Buses can easily wreck like any other car and need to have more safety regulations. Smoking around children is something else that is not necessarily unconstitutional but it is wrong. Smoking in a car with a minor under the age of 14 is illegal, however smoking in a home or within a certain amount feet is not illegal but is just as hazardous. Second hand smoke can increase the risk of respiratory ailments and sudden infant death syndrome. All of these things that I listed are not necessarily unconstitutional but they are very much wrong. I believe there are some things that are not illegal that we should
Every time you look at the news there seems to be a new headline about the most recent mass shooting. With these shootings becoming more common many viewers are becoming desensitized making these murders in cold blood seem normal. In the article Broken Cannot Be the New Normal published in The Avion the author Victoria Jordan tries to persuade the readers that change needs to be made so that we as a society do not have to live in fear of being the victim of the next massacre. Although Jordan takes a stance on gun violence, her over-use of fallacies such as appeal to fear and pity as well as begging the question the left the article with inadequate evidence in addition she barely offers a solution to the problem that she clearly sees. While appeal to emotion can be an effective method to connect with your audience, Jordan however overuses emotion to the point it
In Spike Lee’s movie Do The Right Thing, the ideas of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X are presented throughout the movie. The constant presence of the character Smiley with a photo of the leaders portrays the importance that these two figures’ ideas have in the movie. The “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King, Jr., and the speech “The Ballot or the Bullet,” by Malcolm X, help us elucidate the events that happen during a hot day in the neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The scene of Mookie throwing the trashcan enacting the destruction of Sal’s Famous Pizzeria applies to both King and X’s ideas.
" it a good thing because the constitution says it is and because everyone has human rights.
The government’s actions were not constitutional, because they did not follow the precedent case, used technology that exceeded human senses, and violated DLK’s right to privacy in his home.
Although many people have used the fourth amendment for those purposes, the fourth amendment is only trying to protect people from unwarranted seizures. Without the Constitution, people would be doing whatever pleased them but the document gives people restraints and promotes
It is the peoples right to smoke and drive cars, although they are both very dangerous to the community of Americans. Many places have it to where you can not smoke in certain areas like in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and laboratories. People believe they have the right to smoke wherever and when ever they want, but it is harmful and dangerous to others around them. Although, driving cars is basically a necessity, it is very dangerous to the environment. The air we breathe is now filled with chemicals from the exhaust of vehicles.
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
Would it be alright for the government to infringe these rights to protect us as citizens? There are two sides to this coin, on the first we have the violation of this right set down to protect us. On the other, we have the government’s interest of public safety. Our forefathers had predicted this type of issue. Another founding father, Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In the article “The New Normal” by David Brooks, he argues that the countries future will depend greatly on how the government makes budget cuts. He points out three principles that should be considered when making budget cuts. The first principle is to make everyone hurt, or to make cuts widely and fairly, not just in couple areas. In addition, Brooks claims that the government should cut more from the old to invest in the younger generation. He says that the government should invest more money into education and early-childhood programs.
Anna Mow once said, “’Peace is an attitude, the kind that doesn’t create dissension. We create hostility when we turn away from what the other person is saying instead of listening to understand. The primary task is to perceive the perspective of those who differ with us’” (Long 146). Anna Mow covers a great point.
According to Jessica Statsky’s essay titled Children Need to Play, Not Compete, most children under the age of 12 do not need competition in sports. Claiming that organized sports are not “satisfying nor beneficial” for young children, Statsky expresses her concerns over a few issues. Supporting her thesis, Statsky discusses the negative physical and psychological effects of competitive sports. She further asserts that most children do not enjoy competition by citing a study about how most children would prefer to be on a losing team that allowed everyone to play rather than a winning team that may bench them due to performance. Also, she states ‘scorekeeping, league standings, and the drive to win bring(s) out the worst in adults’.
If you ever want to start a debate on racial issues, just screen Spike Lee’s ‘Do The Right’ to a group of people. Right from the title of the movie the controversial messages start to bring out what someone really thinks on racial injustice. The movie shows racial tensions between groups in a neighborhood. Present in the film are the Italian pizza shop owners that have selectively opened their business in a black neighborhood, while having a racist son. There is the black protester who boycotts their business since the owners do not have any black legend’s placed up on their wall of fame.
Such as the Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly case which banned tobacco advertising. This decision was made even though it infringed on the corporations right to free speech (Hudson). I agree with this decision to ban tobacco advertising regardless of the fact that it is unconstitutional. This Supreme Court ruling refutes the validity of the argument that the individual right of free speech in advertising being more important than the common good, in this case the common good attributes to public health. It is clear these prescription drugs are a hazard to public health.
There is grey disgusting cancerous smoke through the air you and your loved ones breathe. I believe that smoking cigarettes in public places should be illegal for many reasons such as the health and safety dangers of others and even myself. Firstly those who believe that smoking should be banned say that cigarettes can affect smokers deeply in the long run. “Over 50,000 studies of the health effects of tobacco in dozens of countries have detailed its dangers.
As smokefree.gov stated, the smoke “contains over 7,000 harmful chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to damage… [ones] health.” Also, the secondhand smoke “can… stay in the air for several hours after somebody smokes.” Therefore, it is harmful to secondhand smoke. B. Reason to listen: So, let’s look at why smoking should be banned in public places.