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.

The Secrets Couples Keep

The article "The Secrets Couples Keep" by Marisa Cohen http://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/advice/couple-secrets-ll is about secrets that couples should tell their spouse and secrets that they shouldn't tell. In the article it says, "Yet even "small" deception can rock a relationship, and it can be hard to draw the line between what's harmless and what's not."

Most people in relationships keep secrets away from their spouse because they are scared of their reaction or they are afraid the relationship will end. Their are some secrets that are needed to be spilled in a relationship even iof you are afraid of the reaction. It's better to tell your spouse about something in your past instead of finding them out from other people. In the article it says, " If you want a relationship grounded in mutual trust, certain issues require full disclosure. ' If something has a chance of impacting your partner's future or his life with you, then he has a right to know about it," says Mira Kirshenbaum, a relationship expert and author of Is He Mr.Right?.

Secrets that are kept in the dark and then eventually comes in the light can affect you and your partner. The article states, " As many couples find out too late, when you keep a secret that profoundly affects your family, you face a double whammy when the secret eventually-- or inevitably--implodes." There is a limit to how much you need to tell your spouse. They need to know everything about you and your past, but they don't need to know 'everything'.

I think that keeping secrest in a relationship can affect you and your partner. I am in a relationship and there are a lot of secrets that i didn't tell him that he eventually found out. He wasn't so much as upset because he found out but because he found out from other people instead of me. Yes, there is a limit of things that you need to tell your spouse but then again there is really no limit. Like for instants if you have a jail record buto it was ex-sponged and your in a relationship, that is something you need to tell your partner. Just because it's ex-sponged doesn't mean that it will never be talked about, because eventually the conversation will come up.
   Why keep secrets? Is there anything that you feel your spouse doesn't need to know? If it is thats something you still should bring up because like i said, it will eventually be talked about.

Historically Incorrect Canoodling

The article "Historically Incorrect Canoodling" is about how Valentine's day was celebrated differently back in the old day. In the article it says, " Such expectations of married bliss would have horrified the people who invented Valentine's Day- and confused couples steeped in the rules of traditional courtship in the West before the 1800's."


' Valentine's Day was originally created by the Roman Catholic church as a limit on sexual passion.' People almost never believed that falling in love was a great and glorious thing that should lead to marriage, or that marriage was a place to achieve sexual fulfillment. The article states, " Valentine was a Christan priest , martyred in the third century. Some legend says he was executed for refusing to follow a rule againstconducting marriages for Roman soldiers... etc. In one account, Valentine feel in love with his jailor's daughter and wrote her a poignant goodbye letter signed "from your Valentine."


'Christan support for married love is hard to find in the first 1,500 years of church history. As one 12th-century authority wrote, no one "dissaproves" when "a gentle and honest sentiment" softens the bonds of a marriage, but "it is not thr role of marriage to inspire such feeling." Now and days most young people base Valentine's Day off of sexual activity. The article says, "Most young people, then as now, ignored such warnings about the pitfalls of sex and love."


I think that people nowadays do celebrate Valentine's day the wrong way. I feel that Valentine's Day should be celebrated by love and affection for each other. If shouldnt be based on sexual activity. Some people do need to look at the back ground for Valentine's Day because as you read the article you can see that Valentine's Day was actually "when the church declared Feb. 14 St. Valentine's feast day in 498 A.D., it was not trying to celebrate romance." "The Church wanted to replace the existing holiday, a festival honoring Juno, the Roman goddes of love and marriage."

On this past Valentine's Day i didn't really do much. People wished me a happy Valentine's Day and i spent the day with my family. We watched tv and just joked around. Valentine's Day does not have to be based on spending time with a partner or a lover it can be based on many different ways and spent many different way also. My question is besides Mr.Valentine being executed on that day, what made the day so special?

DRUGS + YOUR BRAIN

The article "Drugs + Your Brain" is about different types of drugs and addictions that take over your brain and may control you to do the wrong things. In the article it says, " Abusing drugs directly affects how your brain functions. This can lead to serious physical and emotional health problems." 

Memory meltdown, meaning that certain drugs can lead to shortage of memory. Abuse of marijuana can make it hard for you to remember what you said or did, and impossible to perform complicated tasks, since it affects the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus-- brain areas responsible for thinking and memory. Marijuana and alcohol can affect a person's coordination and impair athletic and driving ability because of the effects on brain areas such as the cerebellum. 
 Abusing cocaine, methamphetamine, steroids, and other drugs can cause anxiety and hostility by affecting many different parts of the brain, including the amygdala, which is a part of the brain that controls emotion and motivation. 

I agree that abusing drugs does much damage to your brain and different parts of it. People who use and abuse drugs would never think that because they use it with out over dosing that they are not hurting themselves in anyway. I have people in my family who smoke marijuana and I see the side affects of shortage memory. Memory Meltdown, Out of Control, A Threat to Mission Control, And Addiction are signs of abuse of drugs. Abusing drugs leads to all kinds of wrong things and puts all the wrong people in danger. People need to soon realize what they are doing to themselves is going to soon affect them in ways they can't imagine.

The New Face Of America

The article "The New Face Of America" is about more minorities being born in the U.S. than majority's and that over time there will be less minorities than majority's. In the passage it says, " The Cenus Bureau annouced last spring that minority births-- Hispanic, black, Asian, American,Indian,Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native-- now outnumber those of non-Hispanic whites."

The shift is monumental for a nation that was founded by white English- speaking Europeans, and has long wrestled with issues of race and ethnicityand engaged in highly charged debates over immigration. " This is an important tipping point," says William H. Frey, the senior demographer at Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He describes the change as a "transformation from a mostly white baby-boomer culture to the more globalized multhiethnic country that we are becoming."
 Minorities now outnumber whites in 348 of the more than 3,000 countries across the U.S. Whites still make up the majority (63 percent) of the U.S. population. But by 2042, minorities are on pace to collectively outnumber whites, according to Cenus Bereau estimates. The change is happening even faster among younger Americans: By 2020, whites will likely make up less than half of the under-18 population.   

I feel that this change is a good thing. I think more races should be able to communicate with other people othet than the ones that they live with or state they live in. What I mean by that statement is if i was chinese and i lived in china, nine times out of ten i would communicate with people that live in my community and people than mainly speak my language. But if i was to migrat to the states i would be able to communicate with people who don's always speak my lanuage and people who live more differently than what people in my city did.
   But on the flip side, American people may not agree to be around people not in their race. They may feel that since they are not american they don't have to apply by american rules.
I don't think that this change is a bad thing. Question is why do some americans feel that it is?

Give Lance another chance?

The article "Give Lance another chance?" by CNN is about should people give Lance Armstrong another chance to redeem himself. In the article it says, "CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance in light of his apologies to his charity, Livestrong, and his soon-to-be-aired interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which he admitted he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong is banned from professional cycling for life and was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles."
  
  Most people believed Lance Armstrong when he told everyone that he was not cheating and doing drugs. In the article it says, "Over the years we heard the accusation that he was cheating, and we heard his denials. We wanted to believe him. We wanted to believe that a man, a person, can soar above physical obstacles on the strength of sheer determination." People had faith in him and felt the passion that he had for cycling, and it hurt them to know that he lied no once or twice but for a decade. 

 "Armstrong didn't just lie about cycling. He didn't just lie once or twice. He lied for a decade, and he deceived all those who found inspiration in him." says Frida Ghitis, a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald. People feel that Armstrong became famous off of a lie. In the article it states, " He became famous because he spoke to all of us about being human. He should make a new career of speaking out about the cost of living a lie." Jeff Pearlman is the author of "Sweetness: The Enigmatic Life of Walter Payton". Jeff Pearlman says, " Do I think he should be allowed to race again?No. Lance Armstrong racing again is not truly an option anyway--he's almost 42."   

 I think Lance Armstrong does not deserve another chance . He lied to the people about not cheating and doing drugs for so long how would we know if he tries again he won't lie again? He has awards and set records but they all tell lies. Why become famous off of a lie? Yes, we can forgive him because after so long he eventually did tell the truth. but i do not think he deserves another chance to cycle. I wasn't much of a fan of Lance Armstrong but do i forgive him for telling the truth after such a long time, yes I do forgive him. But the question is does America forgive him. Does Lance deserve another chance? 

Civil War In Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene

The article "Civil War in Syria Raises Questions About When to Intervene" writing by Ja' anai Delaney for NewsHour Extra is about the violence in Syria and when the international community should intervene. In the article it says, " The continuing violence in Syria has led many to choose to flee their homes for refugee camps in bordering countries, like this one in Mafraq, Jordan. These camps are only temporary solution for refugees, but the international community is unsure of what to do next."

These people are struggling. The article says, " These countries must perform a balancing act as they try to assist the flood of needy people while not putting a strain on their own citizens and resources." The fighting in Syria is primarily between the military loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and anti- regime protest fighters. Many people are invovled in this violent affect. In the article it states, " Terrorist groups such as al- Qaeda even joined the fight, worrying outside observers."

Should the United States intervene in this act? Will they help the people in Syrian? The article states,"While the U.S. and its allies support the anti-regime groups, they have said they will not intervene military unless Assad uses chemical weapons." 
 
" A lot of people are trying to figure out what could be an effective intervention that wouldn't cause more death and suffering." said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in May. " We are thinking about all of this. There's all kinds of both civilian and humanitarian and military planning going on but the factors are just not there."

I think the U.S. should help these peopel. Just because chemical weapons are not being used doesn't mean that they don't need help. Those people are struggling to stay alive, trying to make food stretch, and helping as many people as they can while trying to stay alive. People in Syrian need help just as much as the next person does. Just because Al-Queada is not creating mass destruction doesn't mean they have things under control. These people are hurting and they need our (the U.S.) help. Do not shrug off these people, they need help just as much as our economy does.

All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed

The article "All Work and No Play: Why Your Kids Are More Anxious, Depressed" by Esther Entin is about how children and teenagers nowadays are getting more depressed and having anxiousity because they have less time to play and their parents are taking more control of their life. In the article it says, " Play time is in short supply for children these days and the lifelong consequences for developing children can be more serious than many people realize."

Parents who like to control their childrens play time and hover over them are a big part of the problem. Peter Gray, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology (emeritus) at Boston College says, " It is hard to find groups of children outdoors at all, and, if you do find them, they are likely to be wearing uniforms and following the directions of coaches while their parents dutifully watch and cheer." Gray cities a study which assessed the way 6- to 8-year olds spent their time in 1981 and again in 1997.

Researchers found that compared to 1981, children in 1997 spent less time in play and had less free time. They spent 18 percent more time at school, 145 percent more time doing school work, and 168 percent more time shopping with parents. Adding to the problem, Gray notes, is our increasing emphasis on schooling and on adult- directed activities. Preschools and Kindergarden have become more academically- oriented and many schools have even eliminated recess.But there are five ways play benefits kids, and in the article one of them ways Gray notes, "...in school, children work for grades and praise and in adult- directed sports, they work for praise and trophies... In free play, children do what they want to do, and the learning and pschological growth that results are byproducts, not goals of the activity."

I do feel that adults like to know try to control there childs life. Nowadays when i go outside and see children playing it's because they are playing with their parent or at practice playing soccor or any type of activity. Many parents are scared for their child, and since they are scared they are going to live in the shadow of fear and hover and protect their child as much as they can. After that shooting in Connecticut at Sandy Hook school of course more parents are even more scared for their child to walk out of the door.

When my mother sends my little sister to the store I sometimes fear if within the 5 to 10 minutes she's gone will she be ok or if something will happen. But at times I have to realize that she is getting older and that i can't always protect her and that living in fear of others may effect us in a bad way.
Maybe if I keep hovering over her she may think that im being over protective and may effect our relationship. Parents have to soon realize that they can protect their child as much as they want when they are young, but as they get older you can't protect them as much as they could when they where smaller.

Philadelphia superintendent identifies schools he intends to close

The article "Philadelphia superintendent identifies schools he intends to close" by Kristen A. Graham is about different reasons that the superintendent and the school district is closing about 36 philadelphia schools. In the article it says, " Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. said that come June, he wants to shut one of of six city schools and relocate, close programs, or reshuffle grades at many more."

A lot of students and staff members of the schools that are being decided to get shut down are going to affect them. In the article it states, " the numbers released Thursday are staggering: 17,000 students and 2,000 staffers would be affected by the moves." The government would save a great amount of money if these buildings are closed down. The artcile says, " Thirty- seven building would close for a savings of about $28 million, money the nearly boke district says it needs to survive."

" This is a historic momnet for us," Hite said at a news conference. Overall, 22 elelmentary, 4 middle, d11 high schools, in nearly every neighborhood in the city would close if Hite's recommendation are adopted by the School Reform Commission, which will vote on the shutdowns in March. With these closing a lot of people will lose there jobs. The articleit says, " Jobs would likely be lost as a result of the closing, though there's likely to be ' minimal impact' at the teacher level,Hite said."  Most principals and other support staff are more vulnerable.

I think that closing almost 36 schools is rediculous. If anything they need to either combine schools together and close down some of these liqour stores. They can shut down some of the school building and combine them with another school. Like I go to Parkway West and they share a building with Mya. I think that is good in a way but then again it's not so smart. Why have a jounior high school and a high school together. They should have a middle school mixed in with Mya.
 
There are 3 Parkway West schools. I was once told that all of the parkways where once combined together. Parkway Center City is a big enough school to share with another school. So why not put Parkway West and Parkway Northeast in Parkway Center City building and let Mya share with a middle school and use the other building for something else. I think that would make sense. But closing down 36 schools is just not a good idea.

Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?

The article " Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?" by Nicholas D. Kristof is about regulating guns. In the article it says, " In the upsetting aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought sticks in my mind: Why can't we regulate guns as seriously as we so cars?".

 There are five regulations about ladders, while federal authorities shrug at serious curbs on firearms. The article states, "  Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year, and guns 30,000." There are more things in this world that are more difficult to get than a gun. In the article it says, " As one of my Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting,' "It is more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun.' "

 If guns where regulated it would save a lot of lives. In the article it says, " We're not going to eliminate gun deaths, any more than we have eliminated auto accidents. But if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000 lives saved annually. "We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years," President Obama noted in a tearful statement on television. People feel that Obama's statement is good but if he feels that way he needs to do something to stop these kind of tragedies. The article states, " He's right, but the solution isn't just to mourn the victims - it's to change our policies."

I feel that regulating guns would be a good thing. Like Nicholas D. Kristof states in his article that if we reduce gun deaths by one-third that we would be saving 10,000 lives. I'm tired of watching the news and have to hear that so many people have been shot, or killed or wounded by a gun. Many police officers have been killed by being in a gun war with people. Some people don't know how it feels to have to find out that someone your close to has been killed by a bullet or your family member was caught in the middle of  a shoot out.

October 30, 2012 a friend of mine was shot and killed in Wynnefeild Heights. When i found that out i didn't know how to react. She was in the house baby sitting, she opened the door to let her cousin in the house when she heard the gun shots because her cousin was suppose to had been on the porch. As she opened the door a bullet shot toward the house and hit her in her head. People are not realizing that when you have a gun in your hand that it's one less of a human in this world. Innocent people are dying and losing there lives for all the wrong reasons. One question, will it ever end?