My Fellow Bloggers...

I have been working on this blog for about a month now, and I have also been reading my fellow classmates blogs. Some of them are very interesting and have many arguments going on at once. All of us in this English class have picked an issue and are arguing for both sides of it without bias. Here are a few of my classmates blogs in which I read regularly.


Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This is a site in which I have been reading and commenting on for a while. It is about the studying of stem cells in order to find cures for diseases such as Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injury. These diseases are affecting many people all over the world who just want to be 'normal' without having to worry about getting out of bed in the morning. So what is the debatable argument? Well, these embryonic stem cells have to come from somewhere that are studied, and the scientists want to get them from embryos. A lot of people are against getting these stem cells because it means that some person, embryo, must be killed to do these experiments. Although there are other means of making up embryos, they are artificial. Many people are also for the research because they are affected by these diseases and don't want others in the future to have these diseases if it is preventable. So why not use the fetuses that other give up? Do you want to know what Snowbabies are? Do you know other types of stem cell research? Visit this site in order to find out more.


Wolf Shooting Dispute in Alaska


I kept finding myself going back to this blog to read it content. I guess it was the way the author wrote about the issue at hand. She was very descriptive in both sides of the argument and didn't let bias take control of her site. This dispute is between two very distinct sides of an issue that occurs in Alaska everyday. One side is very environmental and thinks these wolf shootings are wrong, and the wolf population should be left alone by man. Furthermore, this side believes the wolves are not the only reasons why other endangered animals are dying. The other side of the argument states that the wolves are killing endangered species and specially trained shooters should be able to shoot them from the air. In order to find out more about this topic, visit the website above.



The Melting Pot: Immigration Debate

On of the many people who commented to my site was the author of this website. Because she kept so up-to-date with my blog, I felt it necessary to keep up-to-date on hers. I liked her blog entries because she explained aspects of the topic that weren't really studied in the general media such as bilingual education and public schools. I learned a lot about immigration from this site, and there are very reliable sources she has come across in her research. Covering both sides of the issue is important, but it is also important to choose a side in the argument also. If you want to learn about immigration and its affect on society, then this is a great site to visit. The different sides of the argument are obviously for and against immigration, and I have found myself against illegal immigration because there are certain things one should have to do to become a citizen in our country. I like this blog because it addresses these aspects and explains why and why not immigration should be legalized.

These blogs are very important issues that are at hand in today's society. They are debatable and who knows if there ever will be a solution to any debate in today's society. These authors of the three blogs above have put a lot of work into trying to keep their blogs unbias, and I believe they have done a great job. Please visit them and leave some comments of support!

Self-Analysis of Me!

I have started this blog because of my English 101 class, and I am now finishing it because of the different views I have established. I have learned so much from doing this project, and it has really helped me grow and learn as a student and become a better thinker.

I have learned about different ways to do internet research. When students have to do a research paper in class, doing the works cited page is strenuous and hard because you have to worry about every little period and colon on each line. In this project, all you have to do it put in the link and your done. It is a lot less stressful than a regular research paper. I have also learned by doing this assigment that the resources don't necessarily have to from .edu or .org domains in order to use them. We could use sites that quoted other credible sites, or that had statistics and looked professional. On the other hand, we could also use biased sites to prove an emotion or feeling in the post we were creating. It was a great experience.

I have also learned that my topic is not just plain black and white. There is definitely a grey area. You can't just have a group of people who think smoking is good for you and a group of people who think secondhand smoke is horrible. There are also people who believe that citizens have the right to chose what they want to do according to certain laws. I thought there would be a lot of nonsmokers who believed that secondhand smoke was harmful and should therefore outlaw smoking, or at least ban smoking in public areas. However, there was a significant number of sites online that I found people who didn't smoke believed in the rights of individuals to be able to do what they want to without having to take into account the health risks. New ideas are sprung out into the public eye everyday and must be taken into consideration for this issue. Every statistic must be viewed. Every person must be accounted for. It is so hard to tell whether or not smoking should be banned because it is really debatable on whether or not secondhand smoke causes lung cancer or heart risks. There are so many different factors to take into consideration because there are so many things that do cause cancer and health risks in general. This topic has really made me think about different new ideas that are being aroused every day.

I believe I have changed as a thinker for the better. At the beginning of this project I was kind of biased toward this topic, and I only concentrated on finding statistics supporting the fact that secondhand smoke was wrong and harmful and should be banned. However, I found myself learning more and more about the topic as a binary issue instead of just voicing my opinion. I began to state the other sides views and why smokers think it is okay to blow their smoke into someone else's face. I came to believe that we all breathe the same air, but some is just more polluted than elsewhere. I think I became more aware of why others thought the way they did rather than just what they thought. Sometimes I just thought people wanted to debate this issue because of addiction: a smoker can't give up cigarettes because they are addicted. But what was really the case was a lot more complex.

Through interactions with classmates, I have improved my communication skills. I am very shy in class, and this project has made me question, literally, all of the assumptions made in each classmate's blog. I enjoyed reading through certain blogs and commenting on what I thought was the right way to solve or address the issue. Also, I have found many of my classmates to be helpful in commenting on my own blog because it shows what I have missed in the explanation of certain topics concerning public smoking. I thought I would have to beg my parents and friends to leave comments to my site because I didn't think anyone in the class would be able to find something to comment on. I was definitely wrong in that assumption. Through reading the posts I had made, many classmates, I believe, changed their own minds about public smoking. This is really moving to me and I believe that has made this project worth it.

Different perspectives on an issue change as different resources become available. I have found that people change their minds about an issue more than one time as more and more evidence is presented. I have found myself questioning my own point of view on this smoking debate. Pretty much, there are many views on all different issues, and I have found that one view may change your identity in a totally new way that you never knew existed.

Link Me to Smoking Please...

This post is dedicated to a more insightful list of links for learning more about smoking in public and the effects of it. These links are from our library on campus and are reliable sources.

Pro-Smoking in Public Places: These links are to show why smoking should not be banned in public places. They state an issue and try to support why they think the way they do. Smoking is considered dangerous on both of these sites, but they believe there is something else besides a ban that can be done to fix this controversy.

Plea to Fix Secondhand Smoke
A Liberal's Perspective
United Kingdon Input
Student's Point-of-View about Bars

Covers Both Issues: These sites are very lengthy, but they do provide a lot of information and common knowledge about both sides of the issue at hand. They are reliable sources to read if you just want to learn a little bit of what is going on with the issue and why it is still unresolved.

Smoking Bans, the Good and the Bad
Smoking is In and Out of Public Favor

Anti-Smoking in Public Places: These sites are for the ban on smoking in public places because of the health risks. They support the ban because as of right now, there is not enough technology to remove the smoke efficiently from the air in public places such as restaurants. These are reliable because they show that there is support, a majority of support that is, for the complete ban on smoking in all public places.

Secondhand Smoke Deaths
Surgeon General's Input
Local/State Government Bans
Secondhand Smoke
Effects on a Child

So how do we solve this dilemma?

The polarized sides of this argument are very strong. One side believes in the rights for human beings to be established by the Constitution and the freedoms stated in it. The other side believes in the right to breathe freely without being worried about harmful chemicals in the air from smokers. In order for there to be unity between smokers and nonsmokers, there must be a solution to this issue before it gets out of control.

These two sides are completely correct in all of their arguments for freedom, but something must be done to connect this polarity before the country becomes complete chaos in this aspect. The state governments should be able to make their own laws concerning this issue, but they should consider both sides of the argument. At restaurants, smoking seating should be separate and outside, so if someone should want to smoke, they have a choice to either wait and smoke until after dinner, or they can sit outside in a certain area away from the restaurant. In bars, certain legislation could state that bars are for smoking customers or non-smoking customers.

Another possibility for cleaner air would be to invent a new ventilation system that can get all of the chemicals out of the air if possible from secondhand smoke. Smokers' rights should not be taken away because of their choice to smoke, but rather because their choice to smoke affects others health. The state governements need to decide on whether or not to ban this issue and not make it up to the federal government. Also, people who smoke should really start to realize their addiction is not healthy and quitting is the best way to go. But we all know this is not going to happen, so it is the job of the loved ones of smokers to help them quit and help them stop contaminating the air of loved ones.

Smoking Ban On Campus!!

I thought this was interesting. I found this letter from the Chancellor in my email today and it has to do with banning smoking on campus completely in January 2008. Please read this if you smoke!


Dear Carolina Faculty, Staff and Students:

I am pleased to announce a new University policy as a result oflegislation passed by the North Carolina General Assembly this summerand following consultation with the Faculty Council, Employee Forum andStudent Advisory Committee. While we have banned smoking insideUniversity buildings and facilities for years, beginning January 1,2008, we will expand the no-smoking boundary to 100 feet from allUniversity facilities, both on and off campus, and we will not have anydesignated smoking areas. Smoking in state-owned vehicles also will beprohibited.

This extension of our no-smoking zone, authorized by revisions to G.S.143-596, provides an opportunity for the University to sustain itsdedication to a healthy work and learning environment. It allows us toreduce the potential for exposure to second-hand smoke as we reinforcethe efforts of our colleagues in UNC Health Care. Since July 4, thehealth system, School of Medicine and Campus Health Services haveprohibited smoking anywhere on the grounds and parking areas aroundtheir buildings.

The practical effect of this University policy is that the campus willbe smoke-free. We will begin posting temporary signs throughout campusto ensure that visitors and members of the campus community are aware ofthe expanded no-smoking policy. Later, we will replace these signs withpermanent signs at the entrances to campus. The intent of the policy isto promote the health and well-being of people on our campus, althoughwe understand that implementation of this policy may be stressful forsome of our faculty, staff and students who choose to smoke.

As we restrict the areas where people can smoke, we also will providemany resources to help members of the Carolina community who would liketo quit smoking. For information about smoking cessation assistance,students should refer to the Campus Health Services Web site,http://campushealth.unc.edu, and faculty and staff should refer to theEnvironment, Health and Safety Web site, http://www.ehs.unc.edu.

When the new policy goes into effect on January 1, I ask that you treatsmokers courteously and, if you are comfortable doing so, simply requestthat people who are smoking within 100 feet of University facilitiesextinguish their tobacco product.

I wholeheartedly support this expanded dimension of our no-smokingpolicy because of its tremendous health benefits for the entireUniversity community, and I ask for your full cooperation as weimplement the policy and related procedures in January.

Sincerely,
James Moeser
Chancellor

Theory: The solution to smoking

To ban or not to ban.. that is the question. The answer to the most debated question on this blog...

This issue is as polarized as north and south. There are many reasons why it is still unresolved today. The first reason is because of the Constitution. Because the constitution states that people have a freedom of expression and that states get to decide other laws not stated in the constitution, there is a debate among smokers and nonsmokers. Some nonsmokers, though, also believe in these rights and side with the smokers. Another reason this issue remains unresolved today is because it is a health issue and is known to cause harm to individuals near secondhand smoke. Some people don't believe this is even a factor, and they believe secondhand smoke is not dangerous to anyone's health. When there is such a large issue at stake with so many sides to the argument, then it is hard for the sides to come together and decide on a solution. Public issues such as this, the death penalty, and abortion may never become resolved because of the strong beliefs of such separate sides of the argument at hand.

This issue became so contentious because I think people get tired of having to deal with the smell of smoke when they are in public places. Also, it became a large debatable issue in part because of the health risks involved for both sides of the argument. I believe that some of the nonsmokers think that if smoking is banned in public places, then it will lead the smokers to quit smoking and affecting their lives as well as others. If this happens though, the whole idea of banning, and smokers do quit smoking, then the tobacco industry, one of the leading industries in the United States, will plummet, and so will our economy. This is not a fallacy, but the truth because no one will be buying the cigarettes, and either the price will have to increase, or the United States will have to find another crop or industry to rely on more. This cannot and most likely will not happen overnight. So the United States of America needs to find a solution fast before this issue becomes chaotic.

Why shouldn't we ban smoking in public?

The act of banning smoking in public has become a recent issue. The government has been trying to reduce the risks of secondhand smoke amoung the younger population because of the health risks when they reach their forties and higher. Some people don't believe smoking should be banned because of certain governmental rights.

A certain liberal Stephen Tall believes the government shouldn't be able to limit specific rights such as smoking. He states that the health officials have not yet proven that this smoke from cigarettes is harmful to the health of other nonsmokers.

"Do you think the occasional waft of smoke inhaled down the pub is more likely to harm society than a child who lives with two chain-smoking parents? ...Children and adults are far more at risk from constant exposure to smoking in private places than they are from occasional dalliance with smoking in public places." Tall is stating that if a child is exposed to this secondhand smoke at home with parents who smoke, then they are still at risk and the banning of smoking in public places does nothing for this child. What he is getting at is if smoking should be banned, it should be banned altogether and not just in public places. He makes a very legible argument for this in that if we ban smoking altogether, then it would be very hard because of all the people who smoke now, and it would be like everything else that is supposedly illegal illegal.
Another source believes that smoking shouldn't be banned in bars because it is all adults who have already been in contact with secondhand smoke, but it should be banned in restaurants because young children come into contact with the secondhand smoke. This source also states that if adults do not want to be around secondhand smoke, then they should not enter the building. What about the nonsmokers right to live a healthy life? There is always a second side to every story.

--I had this story written, but I forgot to publish it.. I had only saved it instead..