Sharon Osbourne Opens Up About Ozzy's Relapse: "I Am Devastated Right Now"

The article "Sharon Osbourne Opens Up About Ozzy's Relapse: "I Am Devastated Right Now" by Nicholas White is about how Sharon Osbourne feels about her husband relapsing after so many years. In the article it says "We're not getting divorced," Sharon said on Tuesday's episode of The Talk. "However, am I happy? No. Am I upset? Yes I am. I am devastated right now." http://www.tvguide.com/News/Sharon-Osbourne-Opens-Ozzy-Relapse-Devastated-1064479.aspx?rss=breakingnews

Shortly after rumors were going around that the couples relationship was rocky, Ozzy admitted on his Facebook page April 15th that he had begun using drugs and alcohol again after years of sobriety. Some days after April 15th, Ozzy says that he has been 44 days sober. "I never knew that he was using prescription drugs. I knew he was drinking occasionally, but I didn't realize the extent," Sharon says. Ozzy Osbourne says, "I'm sober and not getting divorced."

After Ozzy's statement in April 15, Sharon said they are dealing with it as a family. "[Addition is] a disease that not only hurts the person that has the disease but it hurts the family. It hurts people who love you," she said. Dealing with drug problem in a family is not something to easily deal with. Sharon says, " We're dealing with it and this too shall pass. Otherwise, my husband will be taken to the hospital to get my foot removed from his a**."

Dealing with a drug addict in your family is a tuff issue. I don't know by family experience but I know from other people close to me and from watching television shows. Drug addicts can be hard to deal with and for the person taking the drugs it can be hard to get rid of. Sharon Osbourne is a strong woman. She's staying by her husband side and is helping him through his struggle's. Despite any of their hard times in their past and the fact that they have children together, she is still sticking by him. Most woman probably would leave their husband so that their children don't see the symptoms of being on drugs or to even let the children see their father on drugs.
   But Sharon is sticking with her family, through the good times and the bad. As the wedding vows says, "In sickness and in health" and she is staying with her husband in his temporary sickness. Would you stay with your spouse if they relapsed, despite the fact that you have children and has been married for a very long time?

Korean War Part 2?

In the article 'Korean War Part 2?' by Choe Sang-Hun is about sixty years after the end of the war, tensions are rising on the Korean peninsula. In the article it says, "In the North, a secretive totalitarian Communist regime has ruled over a starving, tightly controlled population. In the South, a vibrant democracy, protected by U.S. troops, has produced one of the world's most technologically advanced economies.

The North nullified the peace of the war from 60 years ago. The article says, " Last month, the North declared the armistice that ended the war and has largely kept the peace for the last 60 years "nullified". And has threatened to launch a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" against South Korea and the United States." For strange behavior and protective actions the threats are being taken serious.

The article states, "Taking no chances, the U.S. announced it would spend $1 billion on additional missile defense in Alaska and California." Despite the war- like rhetoric coming from the North including a bizarre statement that blamed rising tensions on the "venomous swish". The article says, "The third nuclear test was for South Korea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was for the U.S., says Han Young-sup, a professor at the Korea National Defense University in Seoul. ' It has made the North Korean threat seem very close'."

I think that North Korea should not have broke the armistice that stopped the war and began the peace 60 years ago. I think the point of this war is pointless. To me it is a dumb reason to start a war. But the U.S. should take the threats serious and take serious action to the threats before things get out of hand.

Time For A Raise ?

The article "Time For A Raise" by Patricia Smith is about President Barack Obama wanting to push up the minimum wage price from $7.25 to $9.00. In the article it says, "Obama wants Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, which would be the first increase since 2009."

But others do not agree. They feel that if the price of minimum wage goes up they cant afford it and they will have to start letting their workers go. Some people feel that it will affect the economy. The article states, "a  restaurant owner in Texas has to boost the dish-washer's pay to $9, he'll probably have to raise the cook's already-higher salary as well. That leaves him with choices that some economists say are all bad for the struggle economy: He could make less profits, raise prices (which could scare off customers), hire fewer worker, or reduce the number of hours each employee works."

Some people agree to this change. The article says, "The majority of Americans can get a little more money in our pockets that will go back into the economy," Aldridge says, "I think it will help." Rajeev Dhawan, an economist at Georgia State University says, "What matters for people earning minimum wage is how much money they take home in their pay-check." "Their hourly rate may go up, but their number of hours may come down, so it's not an overall increase."

I think that the change of the minimum wage price is a good thing. I don't understand why people say that it will affect the economy and people will lose their jobs because people are already losing their jobs. Most people cant live off of nine dollars but its something good enough to start off with. How do people expect for working to have money in their pocket if their minimum pay is $7.25. $9.00 is not very much but its better than $7.25.  Especially for teenage workers, its not a lot of money but to them that $9.00 is better than anything; as long as they can buy things with their money they don't care. And to older adults that work that $9.00 is not very much to them but its something that they can get by with until they get a promotion to something higher or until they get another job that can pay more.

People cant be picky about what they want. Now I understand that it may mean that some workers has to get laid off, but not to be selfish, managers just need not to hire anyone else if they feel that they will have to lay off workers that they know work hard. Its just not fair. But if you where someone who has had a rough life and has been through some drug problems and someone was trying to give you a job that start paying you at $9.00/h , wouldn't that put a smile on your face?

Found Poem (Sesame Street)

Sesame Street, Old School

Say What?

First episode aired on PBS Nov.10,1969

Snuffleupagus is visible only to Big Bird

The biggest surprise of the early episodes

Oh, is that right?

Sesame Street

takes the edge off taking baths

eating cookies, reading

Don't tell the kids

Sesame Street

Funnier

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-medium-t.html?pagewanted=all

I found this article on nytimes. I chose this article because it stood out to me. It had a picture that had elmo's hand holding a sign that says 'Not The' and its held in front of the Sesame Street sign but is covering the Se in Sesame. So its making the sign say, "Not The Same Street". When I looked at the picture it caught my attention and made me want to look at the article. My poem makes a point of saying that Sesame Street has come a long way and that the show is interesting.

To create a found poem is fun because you get to be creative and jumble different words together. I found this process to be easy and kind of hard at the same time because it was hard to find words to put together. Yes I think doing this poem was worth it because it kept me active and helped me be creative.

Slaughter of the Elephants

The article "Slaughter of the Elephants" by Samantha Strindberg and Fiona Maisels is about poachers attacking elephants and killing them. In the article it says, "An elephant's tusk have become bling for consumers who have no idea or simply don't care that it was obtained by inflicting terror,horrendous pain and death on thinking, feeling, self-aware beings."

Poachers are killing adult elephants and their babies and cutting their tusk off and creating them into jewlery. Poachers have killed adult and babies elephants before. In the article it says, " About a year ago, poachers attacked a family of forest elephants in central Africa."

If poahers keep killing these animals there will  be loss of an iconic species. In the article it states, " The continuing slaughter of these animals means more than the loss on an iconic species. Forest elephants play a crucial ecological role in the life of the forests they inhabit, places of incredicle biodiversity and one of the earth's most important carbon sequestering regions."

I think the killings of these animals are destroying out eco-system. Just because they are animals doesn't mean that they are not apart of life. Animals are dying and they more they die the less they mate, and the less they mate leads to exstinction on the animal. They should not be killing elephants to then make them into jewlery.

Are there other reasons that they are killing them? Is there any reason why these people have no remorse of pulling a triigger on a gun and killing a innocent animal? People are so cruel and don't understand life. People and things that live on this earth all connect and need each other some-way and some-how.

Sisters In Arms

In the article "Sisters In Arms" by James Daq is about whether or not they should let Females go into combat in the War. In the article it says, "The Pentagon has vowed that standards will not be lowered to make it easier for women to join combat units."

Women in combat is not such a bad thing to some people. But to most people they feel that women in combat is not such a good thing. People think that if women were to go into combat that they would freeze up and hesitate and decide not to pull the trigger on the gun when it needs to be pulled. The article states, " They also question whether women have the physical strength to perform task required of some combat soldiers, such as walking for miles wearing heavy armor and carrying packs that can weigh 100 pounds."

Some women feel that the army has been holding them back. Some other women feel that this conversation about women being in combat is a waste of time. In the article it says, " Women have long said that by not recognizing their actual service, the military has unfairly held them back." article also states, " 'It doesn't even enter into conversation anymore,' " says Captain Jaime Phillips, a female artillery officer in the Canadian army. " It's just so ingrained in my generation that it seems silly to hear the same old arguments again."

I feel that there is nothing wrong with women being in combat. I say that because men are 'made' to be stronger than women doesn't mean some women weren't 'made' to be stronger than men. Just because women are a little more feminate than men are doesn't mean that they can't pull a trigger, or kill someone. I sit and watch a TV show called 'Criminal Minds' and there are episodes where as though women are committing murders, kidnapping, and doing other things that you would think i women wouldn't be capable of.

We are women, we are human and we carry are own weight just as much as the next person does. Why can't we fight in combat like men. Yes, maybe some women will freeze up when it is time to pull the trigger. That is why they test for things like that. They prepare for killing and shooting people. If a woman wants to go fight in combat because she feels that she is ready and is tired of the military holding them back to do medi-care on wounded soldiers, then let her fight in combat. If she decides to go out on that battle field and decides not to pull the trigger on the gun, then that is a life risk that she is willing to take. How would you feel if someone told you that you weren't able to do something because of your skin color, or because your to small, or because of the sex that you are, how would that make you feel?

CyberWar

The article "Cyber War" by Patricia Smith is about the United States being attacked by Iran on the Internet. In the article it states, "The hackers picked the one day of the year they knew they could inflict the most damage on the world's most valuable company."

The hackers picked a specific day to attack the United States. In the article says, "They knew that last August 15, more than 55,000 Saudi Aramco employees would be at home preparing for a Muslim holiday. So that morning, at 11:08, a computer virus began erasing data on 75 percent of Aramco's corporate PC's-- documents, spreadsheets, email files-- replacing everything with an image of a burning American flag."

Before the virus could be stopped it affected a lot of computers. Some people feel that we could be facing a 'Cyber Pearl Harbor'. In October Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that the United States is facing the possibility of a 'cyber pearl harbor'. In the passage it says, "The U.S. is increasingly vulnerable." Leon Panetta said to foreign hackers who could dismantle the nation's power grid and more.

I feel that this is something that the United States should be worried about. Cyber-attack may not seem that important to people because it's on the internet. But if people are calling it a 'cyber pearl harbor' than it's something to be concerned about. If you have ever heard about Pearl Harbor or seen the movie about it, then you can see why this would be important. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the U.S. by the Japanese, which caused World War II.

What is the reason that these hackers are doing this? Is it something that the U.S. did to them that we don't know about? I can't read people's minds but I’m kind of sure that these people didn't just attack the U.S. for no reason. There is something that happened before they decided to attack us and it would be nice to know what it is. If these people are that powerful that they are erasing important files and e-mails and hacking into banks and things like that then this is something the President, we the people, and the world should be concerned about.