New international law harms the "wrong" sex offenders
Published by Leea Ivanel on April 22, 2016 -- OPINION
In 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and killed.
She was living in New Jersey when Jesse Timmendequas, a known sex offender, moved into the house across the street without the knowledge of her family. At the time, there was no law that allowed the public to know about the whereabouts of sex offenders.
Horrified by Megan’s tragedy, the American people decided to pass a new federal law, now known as Megan’s law, in order to help prevent future cases of child sexual abuse.
The law was passed in 1994, and has since had several revisions. This included making an online list of all known sex offenders accessible to the public.
As of 2016, a new bill has been signed into law by President Barack Obama, called Megan’s International Law. The law requires all sex offenders who have committed crimes against minors to have a permanent stamp on their passports.
Megan’s International Law is meant to help prevent international child trafficking, and when I first heard about it I thought, without a doubt, that it would be an absolutely wonderful law. After all, human trafficking is still a big problem, with 800,000 people caught in the U.S. trade system alone. Carlmont students even spent weeks putting up informational fliers about it.
The law hopes to prevent trafficking by allowing authorities to much more easily track sex offenders when they leave and enter countries, hopefully thwarting any attempts to smuggling minors.
The law could also add an extra layer of security in airports that I would personally appreciate, as the staff of the airport would know of the individual’s criminal history.
So, what could be the issue with a law that seems to do nothing more then protect minors from vile, disgusting people?
The issue is that it actually does a lot more than just protect children, which is why six sex offenders challenged the law almost immediately after it was passed. According to a SFGate article, the offenders claimed that they would be exposed to harassment and harm for crimes that had nothing to do with sex trafficking.
Originally I thought that their argument was completely invalid, and so did San Francisco judge Phyllis Hamilton, who recently threw out the case. At first glance, it seems like a good idea to have all sex offenders’ passports stamped, whether or not their offenses were related to child trafficking.
However, what the law forgets to take into account is that not all sex offenders are actually vile, disgusting people.
In the U.S., what counts as a child sex offender is not always the movie portrait of a sexual predator. It could be a 17-year-old girl who sends nude photographs to her boyfriend or two teenagers having consensual sex.
With this law, someone who was caught having consensual sex in high school 20 years ago will end up with the same stamp on his passport as someone who has raped a little girl.
In other words, the six sex offenders were right to some extent. The law does indeed wrongfully harm some of those who have committed a “sex offense” against a minor.
However, that does not mean that the law should get thrown out, as the six sex offenders suggested. It doesn’t mean that only those who have a criminal record for the sex trafficking of minors should have a stamp either.
If that were the case, people like Timmendequas would get a free pass.
What we need now is a revision of U.S. laws surrounding minor consent and “possession of child pornography” that draws a clear line between an actual sex offense and consensual sex among teenagers.
Still, laws take a long time to change, so until then, Megan’s Law should take the time to differentiate between these different types of “child sex offenders.”
The law should in the very least have different types of stamps depending on the severity of the offense. Better yet, the law should just leave out some forms of sexual offense altogether.
Despite all of its issues, Megan’s International Law ultimately indicates progress. It serves as a platform for future laws that deal with protecting children from human trafficking, and it will help to prevent this crime.
The law should by no means be abolished. It just needs a little revising.
She was living in New Jersey when Jesse Timmendequas, a known sex offender, moved into the house across the street without the knowledge of her family. At the time, there was no law that allowed the public to know about the whereabouts of sex offenders.
Horrified by Megan’s tragedy, the American people decided to pass a new federal law, now known as Megan’s law, in order to help prevent future cases of child sexual abuse.
The law was passed in 1994, and has since had several revisions. This included making an online list of all known sex offenders accessible to the public.
As of 2016, a new bill has been signed into law by President Barack Obama, called Megan’s International Law. The law requires all sex offenders who have committed crimes against minors to have a permanent stamp on their passports.
Megan’s International Law is meant to help prevent international child trafficking, and when I first heard about it I thought, without a doubt, that it would be an absolutely wonderful law. After all, human trafficking is still a big problem, with 800,000 people caught in the U.S. trade system alone. Carlmont students even spent weeks putting up informational fliers about it.
The law hopes to prevent trafficking by allowing authorities to much more easily track sex offenders when they leave and enter countries, hopefully thwarting any attempts to smuggling minors.
The law could also add an extra layer of security in airports that I would personally appreciate, as the staff of the airport would know of the individual’s criminal history.
So, what could be the issue with a law that seems to do nothing more then protect minors from vile, disgusting people?
The issue is that it actually does a lot more than just protect children, which is why six sex offenders challenged the law almost immediately after it was passed. According to a SFGate article, the offenders claimed that they would be exposed to harassment and harm for crimes that had nothing to do with sex trafficking.
Originally I thought that their argument was completely invalid, and so did San Francisco judge Phyllis Hamilton, who recently threw out the case. At first glance, it seems like a good idea to have all sex offenders’ passports stamped, whether or not their offenses were related to child trafficking.
However, what the law forgets to take into account is that not all sex offenders are actually vile, disgusting people.
In the U.S., what counts as a child sex offender is not always the movie portrait of a sexual predator. It could be a 17-year-old girl who sends nude photographs to her boyfriend or two teenagers having consensual sex.
With this law, someone who was caught having consensual sex in high school 20 years ago will end up with the same stamp on his passport as someone who has raped a little girl.
In other words, the six sex offenders were right to some extent. The law does indeed wrongfully harm some of those who have committed a “sex offense” against a minor.
However, that does not mean that the law should get thrown out, as the six sex offenders suggested. It doesn’t mean that only those who have a criminal record for the sex trafficking of minors should have a stamp either.
If that were the case, people like Timmendequas would get a free pass.
What we need now is a revision of U.S. laws surrounding minor consent and “possession of child pornography” that draws a clear line between an actual sex offense and consensual sex among teenagers.
Still, laws take a long time to change, so until then, Megan’s Law should take the time to differentiate between these different types of “child sex offenders.”
The law should in the very least have different types of stamps depending on the severity of the offense. Better yet, the law should just leave out some forms of sexual offense altogether.
Despite all of its issues, Megan’s International Law ultimately indicates progress. It serves as a platform for future laws that deal with protecting children from human trafficking, and it will help to prevent this crime.
The law should by no means be abolished. It just needs a little revising.
With scientific advancements, death is no longer an end
Published by Leea Ivanel on March 9, 2016 -- NEWS
Many humans fear the day of their passing. After all, the uncertainty of what will happen after death can be a daunting truth to face.
But what if there was no reason to be afraid?
What if death did not have to mean the end of one’s life, but rather the beginning of another?
As it turns out, that is exactly what it means to some in 2016, as science has made it possible for people to be “reborn.”
One way people have achieved their dreams is through the Californian company Bios.
In 2014, the company set out with the goal of creating “life after life” for those who desired it. The company said, “Death is nothing but a word. A construction of the human mind. The only thing real, is life.”
Bios has since worked to show that death doesn’t have to be the end through the creation of its 100 percent biodegradable urns. These urns take the ashes of people and, combined with the proper growth medium for a tree, create the perfect conditions for the “rebirth of a person” through the birth a seed.
According to Bios, Susan Deagon was one of the first people to purchase the Bios urn. Deagon said, “It seemed like such a beautiful idea — instead of putting your ashes on a mantel you can actually create something that you could look at and remember your loved ones by.”
However, if one does not wish to be “reborn” as a tree, they have other options.
A company called And Vinyly, founded by Jason Leach, is responsible for making the dreams of some music-loving individuals come true. For the price of $3,500, the company takes the ashes of people and transforms them into a vinyl containing 24 minutes of audio.
This means that one could literally become his favorite song if he so desired; someone could become one and the same with one of the things he loved the most.
With new companies like And Vinyly and Bios, people can become something that will last for generations and generations to come, something as beautiful and unique as they once were in life.
With the science of today, death no longer has to be an end.
Death is just a new beginning.
But what if there was no reason to be afraid?
What if death did not have to mean the end of one’s life, but rather the beginning of another?
As it turns out, that is exactly what it means to some in 2016, as science has made it possible for people to be “reborn.”
One way people have achieved their dreams is through the Californian company Bios.
In 2014, the company set out with the goal of creating “life after life” for those who desired it. The company said, “Death is nothing but a word. A construction of the human mind. The only thing real, is life.”
Bios has since worked to show that death doesn’t have to be the end through the creation of its 100 percent biodegradable urns. These urns take the ashes of people and, combined with the proper growth medium for a tree, create the perfect conditions for the “rebirth of a person” through the birth a seed.
According to Bios, Susan Deagon was one of the first people to purchase the Bios urn. Deagon said, “It seemed like such a beautiful idea — instead of putting your ashes on a mantel you can actually create something that you could look at and remember your loved ones by.”
However, if one does not wish to be “reborn” as a tree, they have other options.
A company called And Vinyly, founded by Jason Leach, is responsible for making the dreams of some music-loving individuals come true. For the price of $3,500, the company takes the ashes of people and transforms them into a vinyl containing 24 minutes of audio.
This means that one could literally become his favorite song if he so desired; someone could become one and the same with one of the things he loved the most.
With new companies like And Vinyly and Bios, people can become something that will last for generations and generations to come, something as beautiful and unique as they once were in life.
With the science of today, death no longer has to be an end.
Death is just a new beginning.
Viceland: A revolutionary reporting channel on the rise
Published by Leea Ivanel on March 11, 2016 -- OPINION
The same news over and over again.
Politicians doing this, politicians doing that. The economy doing this, the economy doing that.
The same materials are being regurgitated and sold to the people of this country as “breaking news.”
This no longer has to be the case, as a new reporting television channel called Viceland is on the rise with a different perspective on news.
Vice was founded as a Canadian magazine in 1994, and from then on it expanded into Vice Media and even started a news website, Vice News. As of 2016, Vice has expanded even further and launched a new television channel known as Viceland.
Viceland essentially combines all that Vice was known for before into one channel. Its extraordinary documentary series on HBO and its various subsections covering news and music are joined through several series that cover a variety of different topics.
One of these series is “Noisey,” which explores different music cultures around the world. In one episode that I found particularly fascinating, one Viceland reporter investigated the Baile Funk music community within the favelas, or slums on the outskirts of Brazilian towns.
The report started out much like any common report, but as it progressed, it quickly deviated from the regular formula and became something else entirely, something truly unique in the realm of reporting.
Originally, I thought that the report was only going to cover Baile Funk; while the report did explore Baile Funk, it did so in a way that I did not expect at all.
The report did not present just one story, but rather a multitude of stories intertwined together into one harsh reality about the violence and oppression that lies at the roots of the Baile Funk community. Interviewing the police, the people, and even the criminals who are hailed as protectors by the community, Viceland provided a truly striking report.
Still, this is just one of the series that is being featured on Viceland. Another series is “Gaycation,” which follows famous actress Ellen Page and her best friend Ian Daniel on a journey through the world’s LGBTQ communities.
This series, much like the last, provides detailed and breathtaking insight into what is really happening throughout the world.
What drives this unique style of reporting is ultimately the sheer passion of its reporters. Devoting months of their time and even endangering their own lives, these people have set an all-new standard for everything that journalism should strive to be.
Spikey Jones, the famous creator of movies like “Her,” is Viceland’s creative director. Jones said, “We wanted Viceland to be different, to feel like everything on there has a reason to exist and a strong point of view. It’s us trying to understand the world we live in by producing pieces about things we’re curious about or confused about or that we think are funny.”
That is exactly what Viceland has managed to achieve and why it has everything that common news and reporting are lacking.
Politicians doing this, politicians doing that. The economy doing this, the economy doing that.
The same materials are being regurgitated and sold to the people of this country as “breaking news.”
This no longer has to be the case, as a new reporting television channel called Viceland is on the rise with a different perspective on news.
Vice was founded as a Canadian magazine in 1994, and from then on it expanded into Vice Media and even started a news website, Vice News. As of 2016, Vice has expanded even further and launched a new television channel known as Viceland.
Viceland essentially combines all that Vice was known for before into one channel. Its extraordinary documentary series on HBO and its various subsections covering news and music are joined through several series that cover a variety of different topics.
One of these series is “Noisey,” which explores different music cultures around the world. In one episode that I found particularly fascinating, one Viceland reporter investigated the Baile Funk music community within the favelas, or slums on the outskirts of Brazilian towns.
The report started out much like any common report, but as it progressed, it quickly deviated from the regular formula and became something else entirely, something truly unique in the realm of reporting.
Originally, I thought that the report was only going to cover Baile Funk; while the report did explore Baile Funk, it did so in a way that I did not expect at all.
The report did not present just one story, but rather a multitude of stories intertwined together into one harsh reality about the violence and oppression that lies at the roots of the Baile Funk community. Interviewing the police, the people, and even the criminals who are hailed as protectors by the community, Viceland provided a truly striking report.
Still, this is just one of the series that is being featured on Viceland. Another series is “Gaycation,” which follows famous actress Ellen Page and her best friend Ian Daniel on a journey through the world’s LGBTQ communities.
This series, much like the last, provides detailed and breathtaking insight into what is really happening throughout the world.
What drives this unique style of reporting is ultimately the sheer passion of its reporters. Devoting months of their time and even endangering their own lives, these people have set an all-new standard for everything that journalism should strive to be.
Spikey Jones, the famous creator of movies like “Her,” is Viceland’s creative director. Jones said, “We wanted Viceland to be different, to feel like everything on there has a reason to exist and a strong point of view. It’s us trying to understand the world we live in by producing pieces about things we’re curious about or confused about or that we think are funny.”
That is exactly what Viceland has managed to achieve and why it has everything that common news and reporting are lacking.
We are losing Earth's greatest animals
Published by Leea Ivanel on February 11, 2016 -- OPINION
The great giants of the world are leaving us.
Soon they will be nothing more than distant memories told by grandparents, or old scientific records forgotten on dusty desks. Perhaps they will become legends one day, myths for the superstitious, or fairy tales for the children.
Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that Earth’s biggest land animals are disappearing at an astonishingly fast rate.
This needs to change.
One of the world’s most iconic, large land animal, the rhino, has been hit particularly hard by this ongoing phenomenon.
Indian rhinos are one of the most unique members of their species. They are second biggest animals in the world after the elephants. Reaching up to 5,000 pounds in adulthood, they are true miracles of nature.
Today, there are a mere 2,500 Indian rhinos in the world, and the decline of Indian rhinos is not an isolated event. Rhinoceros numbers all around the world have significantly reduced, with only a total of 29,000 individuals currently remaining in the wild.
All of this horror it is due to two reasons: pouching and deforestation.
Pouching is the illegal hunting, killing, and capturing of wild animals, and it is ultimately a disgusting and brutal act, which violates all codes of ethics that a human being should hold. To make matters worse, it is a completely unnecessary act of cruelty towards innocent animals for the sake of money and riches.
Despite being illegal, pouching is far from gone. The horns of rhinos, for example, are still frequently being sold for up to $60,000. In 2014 alone, 1,215 rhinos were killed by poachers.
The second factor contributing to the decline of rhinos is the destruction of their habitats due to deforestation.
Deforestation is the act of wiping out forests and the animals within. Deforestation is responsible for the tragic loss of 80 percent of the world’s natural forests. Forests that rhinoceroses depend on for food, shelter, and the very survival of their species.
The truth is that the rhinos have no way of protecting themselves against these two factors. No amount of armor or thick skin can stop people from stealing both their horns and their land. It is ultimately only other humans who can protect them against humans.
And that is exactly what we all must do. Whether that means donating to an organization, bringing awareness, or actually directly helping the rhinos in either zoos or in the wild, we must be involved.
Ultimately, we must protect those who cannot protect themselves, whether it be the rhinos or other species facing similar threats. We must protect those who are having their homes threatened, those whose future is uncertain, and whose numbers are diminishing.
We must protect the rhinos, before it is too late.
Soon they will be nothing more than distant memories told by grandparents, or old scientific records forgotten on dusty desks. Perhaps they will become legends one day, myths for the superstitious, or fairy tales for the children.
Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that Earth’s biggest land animals are disappearing at an astonishingly fast rate.
This needs to change.
One of the world’s most iconic, large land animal, the rhino, has been hit particularly hard by this ongoing phenomenon.
Indian rhinos are one of the most unique members of their species. They are second biggest animals in the world after the elephants. Reaching up to 5,000 pounds in adulthood, they are true miracles of nature.
Today, there are a mere 2,500 Indian rhinos in the world, and the decline of Indian rhinos is not an isolated event. Rhinoceros numbers all around the world have significantly reduced, with only a total of 29,000 individuals currently remaining in the wild.
All of this horror it is due to two reasons: pouching and deforestation.
Pouching is the illegal hunting, killing, and capturing of wild animals, and it is ultimately a disgusting and brutal act, which violates all codes of ethics that a human being should hold. To make matters worse, it is a completely unnecessary act of cruelty towards innocent animals for the sake of money and riches.
Despite being illegal, pouching is far from gone. The horns of rhinos, for example, are still frequently being sold for up to $60,000. In 2014 alone, 1,215 rhinos were killed by poachers.
The second factor contributing to the decline of rhinos is the destruction of their habitats due to deforestation.
Deforestation is the act of wiping out forests and the animals within. Deforestation is responsible for the tragic loss of 80 percent of the world’s natural forests. Forests that rhinoceroses depend on for food, shelter, and the very survival of their species.
The truth is that the rhinos have no way of protecting themselves against these two factors. No amount of armor or thick skin can stop people from stealing both their horns and their land. It is ultimately only other humans who can protect them against humans.
And that is exactly what we all must do. Whether that means donating to an organization, bringing awareness, or actually directly helping the rhinos in either zoos or in the wild, we must be involved.
Ultimately, we must protect those who cannot protect themselves, whether it be the rhinos or other species facing similar threats. We must protect those who are having their homes threatened, those whose future is uncertain, and whose numbers are diminishing.
We must protect the rhinos, before it is too late.
Small pets are more likely to be abused
Published by Leea Ivanel on May 24, 2016 -- OPINION
Most people love dogs. Their fluffy faces, wagging tails, and crazy fur make them purely irresistible, especially when they roll over and ask for a tummy rub.
Most people love dogs, so when a dog gets harmed, most people care.
Still, not everyone loves fish, and not everyone loves turtles either. So when they get harmed, not as many people speak up.
There have been several incidents in my life where I have witnessed the mistreatment of pets such as birds, hamsters, and fish, whose small sizes make some people think that they require less care than a cat or a dog.
Fish are, unfortunately, the animals that I have seen this abuse happen to the most. Due to their inability to produce noises or express obvious emotions, like cats or dogs, their owners have a tendency to assume that they are constantly doing okay.
Keeping a fish alive is very different from helping a fish stay healthy in its environment. Betta fish, some of the most popular pets among pet owners, are often kept in minuscule tanks that are barely a gallon, when they actually need tanks that are 12 gallons or above to thrive.
Fish are subjected to other forms of mistreatment as well — being left to starve because their owners no longer want to take care of them, or being flushed down the toilet on several occasions. The internet is also full of horror stories about fish being kept in dirty plastic bottles in negligent pet stores.
Other pets like small rodents can’t escape this fate either. Rodents are often kept in cages that lack the needed space and toys to thrive, and are frequently forced into stressful situations for the sake of their owner’s entertainment.
However, it was a personal experience that made me truly realize that there is an issue surrounding small pet care.
When I was six years old I loved animals, as I do now, so I would always visit pet stores to look at all the fascinating creatures inside. One day I went with my aunt, and after an hour of begging I eventually got her to buy me a baby turtle that was about two inches in size.
My aunt never really asked anyone any questions on how to care for the tiny creature, and when it was eventually passed off to my grandparents, they didn’t either. A couple of months later, it had died despite what they thought had been their best efforts.
To this day, I wish that my aunt would not have bought that poor baby turtle for me, simply because she assumed a turtle would not be that hard to care for.
Animals, no matter how small, are hard to care for — they are a constant responsibility that cannot be pushed aside or ignored, and the moment someone buys an animal they need to be ready to commit not only to keeping it alive, but to helping it live the most healthy and fulfilling life that it can.
Animals are not entertainment and they are not a way for people to teach their kids responsibility. They are living beings with needs and wants and lives, no matter how small or simplistic they might be. Just because we own them doesn’t mean that we have the right to let them die.
Overall, if someone cannot give an animal the best life that it can have with them, then they should not have that pet. Unless someone is willing to put in the time to understand what that animal will truly need, they have no business in buying that pet.
Pets are not entertainment — we don’t have pets with the purpose to make ourselves better. We have pets with the purpose of making their lives as good as possible.
Most people love dogs, so when a dog gets harmed, most people care.
Still, not everyone loves fish, and not everyone loves turtles either. So when they get harmed, not as many people speak up.
There have been several incidents in my life where I have witnessed the mistreatment of pets such as birds, hamsters, and fish, whose small sizes make some people think that they require less care than a cat or a dog.
Fish are, unfortunately, the animals that I have seen this abuse happen to the most. Due to their inability to produce noises or express obvious emotions, like cats or dogs, their owners have a tendency to assume that they are constantly doing okay.
Keeping a fish alive is very different from helping a fish stay healthy in its environment. Betta fish, some of the most popular pets among pet owners, are often kept in minuscule tanks that are barely a gallon, when they actually need tanks that are 12 gallons or above to thrive.
Fish are subjected to other forms of mistreatment as well — being left to starve because their owners no longer want to take care of them, or being flushed down the toilet on several occasions. The internet is also full of horror stories about fish being kept in dirty plastic bottles in negligent pet stores.
Other pets like small rodents can’t escape this fate either. Rodents are often kept in cages that lack the needed space and toys to thrive, and are frequently forced into stressful situations for the sake of their owner’s entertainment.
However, it was a personal experience that made me truly realize that there is an issue surrounding small pet care.
When I was six years old I loved animals, as I do now, so I would always visit pet stores to look at all the fascinating creatures inside. One day I went with my aunt, and after an hour of begging I eventually got her to buy me a baby turtle that was about two inches in size.
My aunt never really asked anyone any questions on how to care for the tiny creature, and when it was eventually passed off to my grandparents, they didn’t either. A couple of months later, it had died despite what they thought had been their best efforts.
To this day, I wish that my aunt would not have bought that poor baby turtle for me, simply because she assumed a turtle would not be that hard to care for.
Animals, no matter how small, are hard to care for — they are a constant responsibility that cannot be pushed aside or ignored, and the moment someone buys an animal they need to be ready to commit not only to keeping it alive, but to helping it live the most healthy and fulfilling life that it can.
Animals are not entertainment and they are not a way for people to teach their kids responsibility. They are living beings with needs and wants and lives, no matter how small or simplistic they might be. Just because we own them doesn’t mean that we have the right to let them die.
Overall, if someone cannot give an animal the best life that it can have with them, then they should not have that pet. Unless someone is willing to put in the time to understand what that animal will truly need, they have no business in buying that pet.
Pets are not entertainment — we don’t have pets with the purpose to make ourselves better. We have pets with the purpose of making their lives as good as possible.
California law banning plastic bags meets opposition
Published by Leea Ivanel on May 20, 2016 -- OPINION
Plastic. Plastic everywhere. On the corner of every street, in every single trashcan, on the shelves of every store.
Plastic is everywhere, so why do some people insist that we need more plastic?
In 2016, the Californian state passed a new law in an attempt to help the environment: no store in the state was to give one-time use plastic bags to its customers for free. The law hoped that by making plastic bags cost money all throughout the state, people would turn to reusable and paper bags.
Despite its good intentions, the law has been met with significant opposition from big businesses in the plastic bag industry, such as the American Progressive Bag Alliance and the Texas-based Superbag Corporation. The businesses fear that the new law will harm their profits while simultaneously allowing stores to gain money from bag sales.
The opposing companies, most from outside the state, have been able to raise enough money and controversy to have the law put on hold until the November ballot, when a referendum for it will take place and California will decide whether the law should be kept.
It is hard to say what the outcome of the referendum will be, but it is worthy to note that the law does have significant support in California, as several unions, environmental groups, and local clubs have spoken in favor of it according to The Sacramento Bee. Several counties in California have, in fact, already banned the use of plastic bags.
And it is right that they have. The plastic bag ban law should, by all means, be kept as a law.
As of now, the United States uses 100 billion plastic bags annually, making up a significant portion of the plastic bags used globally. California, having the largest economy in the U.S., is responsible for many of those plastic bags.
The problem with plastic bags is that they have a horrific effect on the environment. Not only do they take up to 1000 years to decompose, according to InspirationGreen, but they also harm over 260 species of animals. Turtles, for example, often confuse the bags with jellyfish and eat them, resulting in painful deaths.
The bags also litter the oceans, mixing with other trash and forming “garbage patches.” These get caught in the Pacific Ocean’s currents and grow in size every year.
Looking at these facts, it’s quite obvious that we do not need more plastic bags, and thus, the state-wide regulations on plastic bags will hopefully be voted into law in the November ballot, despite the opposition of the big companies.
If this law is not passed, then all we will be doing is being accomplices to our oceans, which are becoming nothing more than trash piles riddled with disease and death.
Plastic is everywhere, so why do some people insist that we need more plastic?
In 2016, the Californian state passed a new law in an attempt to help the environment: no store in the state was to give one-time use plastic bags to its customers for free. The law hoped that by making plastic bags cost money all throughout the state, people would turn to reusable and paper bags.
Despite its good intentions, the law has been met with significant opposition from big businesses in the plastic bag industry, such as the American Progressive Bag Alliance and the Texas-based Superbag Corporation. The businesses fear that the new law will harm their profits while simultaneously allowing stores to gain money from bag sales.
The opposing companies, most from outside the state, have been able to raise enough money and controversy to have the law put on hold until the November ballot, when a referendum for it will take place and California will decide whether the law should be kept.
It is hard to say what the outcome of the referendum will be, but it is worthy to note that the law does have significant support in California, as several unions, environmental groups, and local clubs have spoken in favor of it according to The Sacramento Bee. Several counties in California have, in fact, already banned the use of plastic bags.
And it is right that they have. The plastic bag ban law should, by all means, be kept as a law.
As of now, the United States uses 100 billion plastic bags annually, making up a significant portion of the plastic bags used globally. California, having the largest economy in the U.S., is responsible for many of those plastic bags.
The problem with plastic bags is that they have a horrific effect on the environment. Not only do they take up to 1000 years to decompose, according to InspirationGreen, but they also harm over 260 species of animals. Turtles, for example, often confuse the bags with jellyfish and eat them, resulting in painful deaths.
The bags also litter the oceans, mixing with other trash and forming “garbage patches.” These get caught in the Pacific Ocean’s currents and grow in size every year.
Looking at these facts, it’s quite obvious that we do not need more plastic bags, and thus, the state-wide regulations on plastic bags will hopefully be voted into law in the November ballot, despite the opposition of the big companies.
If this law is not passed, then all we will be doing is being accomplices to our oceans, which are becoming nothing more than trash piles riddled with disease and death.
Teacher's passions inspire their students
Published by Leea Ivanel on January 28, 2016 -- OPINION
In an age where the answer to everything lies on the internet and it takes just the click of a button to have access to online classes, one might wonder what the role of teachers truly is.
Online courses are, undoubtedly, a wonderful inversion, especially for those who do not have the possibility to attend a campus for their education. They are also helpful for those who cannot afford to pay full tuition.
“What used to be expensive and inaccessible becomes convenient and accessible,” said Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, who studies the affects of technology on education, in an interview with U.S. News.
However, these classes are not perfect. Most of them, while allowing some student-teacher interaction, do not convey any emotions and lead to impersonal interactions. The vast majority of online courses could never compare to the experience of having a teacher.
A direct interaction between students and teachers is important for many reasons.
For one, teachers that interact with their students are able to directly observe what their students comprehend and what they do not. Therefore, they are able to adjust the difficulty of their classes in order to help their students do the best they can. Math teacher Gayle McGinnis allows her students to take group quizzes in particularly challenging chapters, for example.
Moreover, these teachers are able to explain the material in a multitude of ways, such that it helps each individual succeed. While the internet has a multitude of sources on many topics, there is no existing website that will rephrase ideas for the specific needs of individuals.
Another important aspect of direct student-teacher interaction is the passion that teachers can convey to their students.
Taking an online course consisting of reading and tests, or watching videos of lectures is completely different from actually being in a classroom with a teacher. A teacher sharing their passion in person can be a truly life-changing experience for students, as it may help them discover what they are passionate about.
Teachers who are in direct contact with their students also tend to care more about them, often encouraging them to strive to reach their highest potential.
In the end, it is quite obvious that direct teacher-student interaction is important, as it benefits students greatly and it may even change their lives.
Online courses are, undoubtedly, a wonderful inversion, especially for those who do not have the possibility to attend a campus for their education. They are also helpful for those who cannot afford to pay full tuition.
“What used to be expensive and inaccessible becomes convenient and accessible,” said Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, who studies the affects of technology on education, in an interview with U.S. News.
However, these classes are not perfect. Most of them, while allowing some student-teacher interaction, do not convey any emotions and lead to impersonal interactions. The vast majority of online courses could never compare to the experience of having a teacher.
A direct interaction between students and teachers is important for many reasons.
For one, teachers that interact with their students are able to directly observe what their students comprehend and what they do not. Therefore, they are able to adjust the difficulty of their classes in order to help their students do the best they can. Math teacher Gayle McGinnis allows her students to take group quizzes in particularly challenging chapters, for example.
Moreover, these teachers are able to explain the material in a multitude of ways, such that it helps each individual succeed. While the internet has a multitude of sources on many topics, there is no existing website that will rephrase ideas for the specific needs of individuals.
Another important aspect of direct student-teacher interaction is the passion that teachers can convey to their students.
Taking an online course consisting of reading and tests, or watching videos of lectures is completely different from actually being in a classroom with a teacher. A teacher sharing their passion in person can be a truly life-changing experience for students, as it may help them discover what they are passionate about.
Teachers who are in direct contact with their students also tend to care more about them, often encouraging them to strive to reach their highest potential.
In the end, it is quite obvious that direct teacher-student interaction is important, as it benefits students greatly and it may even change their lives.
The downside of living in a heteronormative society
Published by Leea Ivanel on January 22, 2016 -- OPINION
“Your son is going to grow up and get all the ladies.”
“Just look at them! They will be such a cute couple when they’re older.”
“Come on! I know you have a boyfriend. Tell me about him! You don’t have to be embarrassed!”
While not all people notice, heteronormativity is all around us. It can be easily found in books, movies, television, and other forms of entertainment. It can also be heard in day-to-day conversations, such as people assuming a two-month-old baby will grow up to be straight or even my grandmother’s excessive questioning about my “boyfriend.”
But what is heteronormativity, and why is it so harmful?
The term heteronormativity was coined back in 1991 when Michael Warner, a literary critic, social theorist, and professor at Yale University, popularized the term through a series of articles published by Duke University. Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality is the norm of society and that socially acceptable relationships occur only between individuals of opposite sex.
The problem with heteronormativity is that it is incredibly prominent in society, affecting everything from the representation of minorities to the very language that people use.
Firstly, there is the undoubtable lack of representation of queer characters in both movies and television shows, while there are practically an infinite number of stories about two straight characters with little to no chemistry ending up in relationships that do not even benefit the plot.
Although the representation of queer people has become more common over the years, it is still not ideal. Movies like “Carol” and “The Danish Girl” oftentimes have characters within them that are reduced to nothing more then their queer identity.
Despite it being extraordinary that there are even movies about queer characters, queer people do not need to be turned into “rare, tragic beings,” but should be portrayed as people who are just as “normal” as the rest of society.
So, why does all of this matter? Sure, it’s — at least to me as well as many queer people who I know — annoying, aggravating, and to some extent insulting that queer people are rarely part of movies, and that even when they are, the most interesting part of their character is just their sexual orientation. So that’s it, right? Just the hurt feelings of a group of minorities?
Well, not quite. This lack of proper and common representation due to heteronormativity leads to a lot more then just daily anger and annoyance.
Take, for example, a person of color growing up seeing only white people doing great things in the media, or a woman growing up and only seeing men being leaders in the media. These minorities will start to believe that they are not as capable as those who do get represented. This case is no different, except it is caused by heteronormativity, not sexism or racism.
However, this is just the matter of heteronormativity in mass media, which can be more or less ignored or escaped. What cannot be truly escaped however, is the heteronormativity that is promoted by those who we live amongst.
A vast majority of the queer community that has come out has been subjected to phrases such as, “You are too young to know that you are queer.” These phrases, unfortunately, often come from their family members or friends.
Heteronormativity is one of the reasons why members of the LGBTQA community have to come out in the first place. If society was not heteronormative, then queer people would not have to deal with the often nerve-wracking experience of coming out, and would not have to spend years hiding their sexuality from their friends, family, and society.
And that is really what this all boils down to, which is homophobia would not exist without heteronormativity. The injustices that have been committed throughout history against same-sex couples, as well as the ones that are still committed today, are all ultimately due to the existence of heteronormative beliefs in society.
“Just look at them! They will be such a cute couple when they’re older.”
“Come on! I know you have a boyfriend. Tell me about him! You don’t have to be embarrassed!”
While not all people notice, heteronormativity is all around us. It can be easily found in books, movies, television, and other forms of entertainment. It can also be heard in day-to-day conversations, such as people assuming a two-month-old baby will grow up to be straight or even my grandmother’s excessive questioning about my “boyfriend.”
But what is heteronormativity, and why is it so harmful?
The term heteronormativity was coined back in 1991 when Michael Warner, a literary critic, social theorist, and professor at Yale University, popularized the term through a series of articles published by Duke University. Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality is the norm of society and that socially acceptable relationships occur only between individuals of opposite sex.
The problem with heteronormativity is that it is incredibly prominent in society, affecting everything from the representation of minorities to the very language that people use.
Firstly, there is the undoubtable lack of representation of queer characters in both movies and television shows, while there are practically an infinite number of stories about two straight characters with little to no chemistry ending up in relationships that do not even benefit the plot.
Although the representation of queer people has become more common over the years, it is still not ideal. Movies like “Carol” and “The Danish Girl” oftentimes have characters within them that are reduced to nothing more then their queer identity.
Despite it being extraordinary that there are even movies about queer characters, queer people do not need to be turned into “rare, tragic beings,” but should be portrayed as people who are just as “normal” as the rest of society.
So, why does all of this matter? Sure, it’s — at least to me as well as many queer people who I know — annoying, aggravating, and to some extent insulting that queer people are rarely part of movies, and that even when they are, the most interesting part of their character is just their sexual orientation. So that’s it, right? Just the hurt feelings of a group of minorities?
Well, not quite. This lack of proper and common representation due to heteronormativity leads to a lot more then just daily anger and annoyance.
Take, for example, a person of color growing up seeing only white people doing great things in the media, or a woman growing up and only seeing men being leaders in the media. These minorities will start to believe that they are not as capable as those who do get represented. This case is no different, except it is caused by heteronormativity, not sexism or racism.
However, this is just the matter of heteronormativity in mass media, which can be more or less ignored or escaped. What cannot be truly escaped however, is the heteronormativity that is promoted by those who we live amongst.
A vast majority of the queer community that has come out has been subjected to phrases such as, “You are too young to know that you are queer.” These phrases, unfortunately, often come from their family members or friends.
Heteronormativity is one of the reasons why members of the LGBTQA community have to come out in the first place. If society was not heteronormative, then queer people would not have to deal with the often nerve-wracking experience of coming out, and would not have to spend years hiding their sexuality from their friends, family, and society.
And that is really what this all boils down to, which is homophobia would not exist without heteronormativity. The injustices that have been committed throughout history against same-sex couples, as well as the ones that are still committed today, are all ultimately due to the existence of heteronormative beliefs in society.