Monday, March 19, 2012

Treyvon Martin Shot and Killed by Neighborhood Watchman


The FBI investigates the killing of Trayvon Martin a 17 year old Black male high school student who was shot by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.

Feb 26 Trayvon Martin was visiting his father in a gated community in Florida. He left his father house to walk to the local 7-eleven where he purchased skittles and iced tea.  The neighborhood watchman Zimmerman who was patrolling noticed Martin on his return to his father house. Zimmerman became suspicious of the boy which he then called a non-emergency dispatch number. He told the dispatcher he seen a “real suspicious guy” who looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. The dispatcher told Zimmerman that he did not need to follow to Martin because the teen was not doing anything wrong.  Despite the dispatcher warnings Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. Martin began to run Zimmerman chased him and the two ended up in altercation that led to Martin dead and Zimmerman standing over his body. When the police arrived to the scene Zimmerman was not arrested because he claimed it was an act of self-defense.  When the police questioned witnesses of the incident one lady said she heard Martin screaming for help but the police corrected her and said it was Zimmerman calling out for help. Zimmerman has not yet been charged for the death of Martin.

This senseless killing is disturbing and upsets me on so many levels. The hate crime, negligence of the police on duty and also a crazy man permitted to carry a gun.

First off how could the police let a man with a gun walk away from a scene where someone was shot to death without holding him and doing a proper procedure? Zimmerman has a previous charge for assaulting a police officer that was dropped. In eight weeks prior to this incident Zimmerman made nearly 50 calls to the police. The police failed to test Zimmerman for drug or alcohol intoxication. It was later reported that in the 911 tape Zimmerman sounded as if he was intoxicated.  The police officers on duty for that incident should have their badges taken away.

I know if it was a white boy who had been shot and killed, I am positive it would be a different story; Zimmerman would be in jail with no bail. I say this is a hate crime because Zimmerman clearly targeted the boy for being black. Zimmerman is Hispanic but identifies himself as White.  Residents from the gated community have reported that Zimmerman would sometimes walk door to door warning residents about black people.  

Zimmerman has psychological issues. He claimed the title as captain of the neighborhood watchers in his gated community. He took his title very seriously, at night he would walk his dog and patrol the neighborhood always carrying his gun. He made nearly 50 calls to the police in eight weeks. Zimmerman is not registered a member of the National Neighborhood Watch Program; which means he had no official title. Regardless of an official title Zimmerman violated principles of the Neighborhood Watch Manual which states that "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous." It is also reported that in Zimmerman’s past he at one time wanted to be a law enforcement official, attending the University of Central Florida while studying criminal justice.  Zimmerman is a crime seeker who is looking to play a Hero. He is possibly a drug user or an alcoholic which we wouldn’t know for sure because the police failed to do their job.

I hope that justice is served; Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter.  

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Advertising and Childhood Obesity

To continue research on Advertising and Childhood Obesity I came across a July 15, 2011 Los Angeles Times article by Andrew Seidman. The article addresses the problem of childhood obesity in correlation to advertising and the in progress solution proposed by the food and beverage industry and the government. The government has placed nutrition criteria and guidelines for advertising towards children. The guidelines targets a number of food types and the limits on the amount of calories, sugar, sodium and saturated fat allowed in the foods advertised to children. "Some of the nations largest food and beverage companies proposed new self-imposed regulations to drastically restrict the kinds of products they use to advertise and market towards children." The U.S companies involved in this proposal include Kraft, Kellogg and Nestle, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

I agree with this proposal and applaud the government and food and beverage industry for taking responsibly for their roles in childhood obesity. I commend the two for working together and setting a standard for healthy eating and living in the United States. I hope all companies in the food and beverage industry will follow the leaders in the industry.




During my research I came across this video on Youtube, a student conducted a media project on Food Advertisement and Childhood Obesity. I think whomever the person is did a good job. The video points out the correlations of advertising and childhood obesity in a creative way.


Sunday, February 5, 2012

Current Issues


On January 31, 2012 the Susan G. Komen for the cure organization decided to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. 


The Susan G. Komen for the cure also referred to as Komen is the largest funded breast cancer organization in the United States. Planned Parenthood Federation of America known as Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization providing sex health, education and family care services. The Susan G. Komen organization and Planned Parenthood have had a relationship for over five years. The Susan G. Komen organization had been granting Planned Parenthood funds to provide breast exams and mammograms in the health centers. According to Planned Parenthood as a result of a 170,000 grant from Komen the health centers have performed over 4 million breast exams in the past five years.


Planned Parenthood has been under investigation for using federal funds to pay for abortions. For this reason the Komen foundation has ended their relationship with Planned Parenthood. The Komen organization rules that it is not permitted to support any organization that is under congressional investigation. 


The controversy is that people believe Komen decision to cut ties is for political reasons. Planned Parenthood has always been under the fire from pro-life supporters because of its abortion services. Komen has also been criticized because of association with Planned Parenthood. It is reported that the decision was forced by Karen Handel hired by Komen last year as vice president for public policy. Handel is known for losing a campaign for governor in Georgia in which she stressed her anti-abortion views and opposition to Planned Parenthood. Women's health advocates are outraged that Komen would put politics over women's health. Many others are disappointed with the decision made by Komen such as Molly Williams who is Komens former director of community health programs, she has resigned in protest over the cutoff. 

I believe Komen decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood was a political move. Planned Parenthood has been investigated before and it was determined the organization does not use federal money for abortions. It seems to me as if the poor are always under fire of politics. Planned Parenthood provides services to the poor, uninsured and under-insured; with Komen's support women were able to receive screenings, education and treatment in Planned Parenthood health centers located in communities located all over the United States. I disagree with Komen's decision and hopefully they will realize their mistake and revoke their decision soon. 

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Think About It

1. Consider the following cases. What do you think about each? What are the indicators that each person does not believe what he has reasoned out? What are the barriers to thinking critically in each case?


  • Micheal reasons out the issue of capital punishment as deterrent. He gathers information and concludes that it does not significantly deter murder or other violent crimes. But after his investigation, he feels angry. He says, "Maybe that's true, but I'm still in favor of capital punishment because you have to do something to stop the criminals."
The argument of capital punishment is very difficult. You have to be strong minded and well educated on the topic to choose an argument. It is ignorant to say that all murderers should die. Micheal did his research and came to a realization that maybe capital punishment is extreme and hasn't really benefited the justice system, but still he will not change his  on the topic. I think he became angry because he felt defeated, he wants criminal activity to decrease but he cannot think of any other positive solutions for the justice system. 

  • Maria is taking a course in gender studies, reasons her way through the argument that there is no nonsexist reason why a woman should adopt her husband's name at marriage. Like Micheal, Maria discovers that the more she follows the argument the angrier she gets. 
Maria is getting angry because she knows her argument is not reasonable. Marriage is a tradition and adopting the groom last name is a part of that tradition; there are nonsexist reasons why a woman should adopt her husband's name. Traditionally a woman getting married means her family has given her away she has now left her own to join another family for this reason she should adopt the new family name. Other reasons are for insurance and financial reasons. Maria knew she was stretching her sexist argument and it was making her angry to admit to being wrong. 

  • Pete believes that all cultures and all cultural practices are equally valid. He believes people do not have a right to say that a particular culture's practices are wrong. But he also believes that it's part of our Western culture to impose our ideas on others, and that it's wrong for us to do that. (Most of us believe that everyone should be treated equally, but that does not prevent us from thinking we deserve special breaks.) 
Pete is contradicting himself." He believes that all cultures and cultural practices are equally valid" but then he also believes that it is wrong for Western culture to impose ideas on others. It is a custom in Western culture to be the leader of all societies. If Pete believes that all cultural practices are equally valid then he should agree that it is fair for Western culture to impose on other cultures. If a person  comes to the United States from another country are not necessarily expected to adapt our culture and became American overnight but we do have customs and laws that everyone should accept. Vice versa for Americans. 

  • Some people think that eating dogs, cats, or seagulls is revolting, but that eating cows or chickens is quite reasonable. They believe this despite the fact that all their reasoning's show the cases are identical. They find themselves trying to make up reasons that they know don't work ( such as "Dogs and cats are pets! That's why it is wrong to eat them.")
This scenario stood out to me the most because the cases are identical and the reasoning really comes to cultural aspect. Eating cat or dogs in Western culture is taboo but in other cultures it may be the normal. And if you are not familiar with eating cat or dog then you can't understand why it may be delicacy or dietary supplement for others. I personally wouldn't eat cat, dog or seagulls but I wouldn't judge another person if they did. 

2. Consider the following situation. Explain why the last step is difficult?

The teacher lowered my course grade because I missed too many classes. I feel unfairly treated. So I raise the question: "Was my teacher being fair in giving me this grade?"

  • Collect information:
  • Check the syllabus about missed classes
  • Ask the teacher
  • Consider the teacher's point of view on the issue and purpose in lowering grades due to absences
  • Conclusion: the teacher was fair
  • Therefore, I believe the results of my reasoning that my teacher's actions in lowering my grade were fair.
  • Why is this last step difficult?
  • The last step is difficult because it is often challenging for some people to accept their faults. It may be difficult for a student to agree with the reasons that it is their negligence that caused the lowering of their grade received in the class. It is easier to blame others for our faults. 

I think in each case the person comes to an understanding of the opposition to their argument but are still unwilling to agree or accept defeat. Each person in the scenarios seems biased based on their thinking. To have an educated opinion you must be subjective and understanding of both sides to an argument whether or not you agree or believe it.