What Obama's Election Really Means to Black America

The article “What Obama’s Election Really Means to Black America”, by Steven Gray, explains that Obama’s election was a breakthrough of African Americans into higher-level politics. This is a breakthrough because of America’s past. Even ten years ago, for example, many people could not even think of an African American winning “a national party’s ticket and then compete[ing] effectively” (Argument! 311). America’s past of slavery, segregation, and judgment made it easy for the white population to doubt that it would ever happen. The article is summed up with its quote saying: “Our country is showing its forward evolution, that the color of one’s skin cannot inhibit one’s ability, and that’s worthy of celebration” (Argument! 312).

Obama’s color is worthy of celebration, I agree, but are we really ready to embrace so many negative impacts in exchange for the color of a person’s skin?

I understand that there are pros and cons to every debate. Every law that is passed will benefit 

someone, but it is sacrificing another area. For example, ObamaCare has many pros and cons.                    

ObamaCare allows tens of millions of uninsured people to get access to affordable health insurance. However, new taxes must be passed to pay for these. Most of the people taxed are not the uninsured; thus, they are paying for someone else’s health insurance.

“Small businesses can get tax credits for up to 50% of theiremployees health insurance premium costs.” However, many businesses have cut employee hours because in 2015, businesses with over 50 full time employees must provide health coverage. This results in the loss of many jobs.

82% of uninsured adults will qualify for free or low cost insurance. This is great, but young people tend to not need coverage as often as older Americans. Also, if they actually do need it, it is encouraging people to not pay for their own insurance so that they qualify for free insurance.

These are a few pros and cons. It benefits some people, but is negative to many others.

Obama also failed to regulate big banks, such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigorup, and Wells Fargo. They are now bigger than they were before the financial crisis of 2007-2008. People working for banks make incredible profits, while ordinary Americans (the majority of Americans) continue to struggle. 

These are just a few things that President Obama has done. His actions have allowed certain people to flourish, while dooming the average American person.

Isn’t this what it means to Black America, too? Yes, it is a huge breakthrough that a Black American has won the presidency. But is that really important if the same Black Americans are the average citizens that continue to struggle?

Obama’s election for Black America was nothing more than a symbol that failed to carry through with actions.

That is not worthy of celebration.

Diet Soda

Dear Reader,

Stop drinking diet soda.

There, I said it.

It is a commonly known fact that diet soda is not good for you. However, one fifth of the American population continues to consume diet drinks every day. Most people could tell you that diet soda isn’t the best for you, but they couldn’t tell you why.

I am here to tell you why.

Kidney problems. Harvard Medical School conducted an 11 yearlongstudy. They followed over 3,000 women and their kidneys. They found that diet soda is “associated with a two fold increased risk for kidney decline.”

Ruined metabolism and increased weight. It does not add more calories to your diet, but it does add more sugar. This sugar slows down a person’s metabolism. When metabolism slows down, less fat is burned. Also, artificial sweeteners, while having a more intense flavor then real sugar, can disrupt the body’s regulation of calorie intake. They trigger insulin, which sends body fat into storage. In addition, it is easier to eat more after drinking diet soda, because this sugar causes you to continue to crave more. The University of Texas conducted a 10 year research in which they found that diet soda drinkers had a 70% greater increase in inches around the waist than non soda drinkers.

Cell damage. Almost all diet sodas contain sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate. These chemicals can “cause sever damage to DNA in themitochnodria to the point that they totally inactivate it”.

Rotting teeth. Soda has a pH of 3.2. This acid dissolves enamel and can decrease dental health.

Because other dieting habits have a big influence on healthiness and weight, it is not 100% clear if diet soda is the reason for all of these negative effects. However, research has been consistent. Thus, it is not unrealistic to infer that diet soda had a major impact on all of the health issues stated.

Also, remember that all of the studies were long term. This doesn’t happen overnight. In other words, if you don’t see these problems yet, it doesn’t mean you won’t get them.

So, if you want kidney problems, weight gain, cell damage, and rotting teeth, diet soda is a perfect fit for you!

But, dear reader, I doubt that is what you want.

Stop drinking diet soda.

__

sources:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/7-side-effects-of-drinking-diet-soda

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db109.htm

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20739512_3,00.html

Week 11 Text Response

“A Little Civility, Please” written by Mark Davis discusses how far freedom of speech can go. Davis agrees that schools have the right to ban certain clothing that is disruptive in their language. For example, a Tshirt that has a picture of Bush with the words “international terrorist” on it can be banned. He also makes the point, however, that in the outside world, there are places and times that these matters can be discussed. (Argument! 343-344)

I agree with Mark Davis. Davis did not give much evidence from the government in why this should be the case, though. In other words, there was no formal document addressed that lists what makes these practices right or wrong. Why does a school have that right? Why does a person have the right to have those opinions outside of school? He did touch on the Tinker v. Des Moines case, but not in extreme detail.

I will explain the Supreme Court cases that ultimately decided the school’s right to monitor clothing and speech.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the first case. In this case, a student wore a black armband to school to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. The student was sent home because of a recent rule banning armbands. This case was brought to court; it was ultimately decided that the school violated Tinker’s First Amendment rights. This is because the armband did not disrupt learning and did not interfere with school activities. This case does not show that the school has the authority to send them home, but it was the first school dress code rule established the Supreme Court.

In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a student gave a speech that contained graphic and sexual metaphors there were directed towards another student. The student was suspended because he violated a school disciplinary rule. The Court held that the school was constitutional in suspending the student because “vulgar speech” and “lewd conduct” goes against the fundamental values of public school education. Because public school education is part of the state, the state holds authority, and suspending the student is constitutional.

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the power of the public school was expanded. The Court concluded that educators were not infringing on the student’s First Amendment rights by monitoring style and content of student speech as long as it related to actual teaching concerns. Although the students still had freedom of choice in what they wore, wrote, or said, the school had the final say. This case expanded the authority of the school by allowing the regulation of any “school sponsored” activity. This could be used in a dress code instance.

                                                                  

Poster-D13c.jpg

Mark Davis says that “T-shirts can be nixed if they are-here’s the tough word-disruptive…an atmosphere that fails to preserve a sense of order and decorum sends the message that various other behavioral extremes might also be tolerated. That is bad. An armband is one thing. Hate speech, even under the guise of political discourse, is quite another” (Argument! 343). This concept is seen throughout the Tinker vs Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwoods v Kuhlmeier cases. It is most directly seen by in the Kuhlmeier case as it allows the regulation at any school sponsored activity. I would say regulating hate speech on Tshirts at school falls under that category.