gun control (Editorial)

Gun Control

In many ways guns can be seen a bad thing and those people who believe this are not neseccairly wrong but other view guns as the offer a lot of protection and safety It protects our country not even Hitler invaded countries that allowed their citizens to privately own guns”. I think that this is a strong statement on why we should be able to own a gun.

Those with a criminal background should not be allowed to own a gun. Once you have been convicted for a crime the privilege of owning or shooting a firearm should be taken away from you. The gun control act of 1968 imposed a broad regulation on the interstate commerce and ownership of firearms stating that …………. The crime control act of 1990 congress addressed problems associated with violent crimes with the enactment of the violent crime control and law enforcement.

Many people believe that only certain types of guns should be allowed to the public a lot of mass murders that are committed like the movie theater shooting all trace back to some type of automatic weapon of some kind. The movie theater shooting in Colorado there were 4 guns used one of the being an AR-15 a semi and fully automatic gun or the Columbine shooting in 1990 killer Dylan used a tec-9 submachine gun. Along with buying an automatic weapon there is a five day waiting period this gives the FBI time to do a background check on you.

People who suffer with a mental illness should not be able to possess a firearm or have any kind of access to a firearm. Adam Lanza had been diagnosed with sensory integration disorder (SID) reports who interviewed his mom say that he could not feel pain and that he did not feel bad for the horrific actions he committed. In other cases shooter Jared Loughner who is the convicted felon of shooting Gabby Gifford’s and many others suffered with schizophrenia had been forced to take a anti-physchotic drug.

Under Armour

Ethan Orrey

Hr-2

Under Armour Controversy

You see their clothes everywhere, with the popular “UA” logo.  My aunt works there, so I have many of their clothes.  Under Armour has been able to outperform competitors such as Nike, Adidas, Champion, and Russell and many others. Yet, people still raise the question, does Under Armour buy their products and materials from sweatshops in the U.S. or overseas and how is that legal?  Under Armour has many points stating that they focus on buying their materials from factories that do not force child or any labor and do not buy their materials from places that use sweatshops.  The company also says that using a factory where labor is forced should be illegal because the employees are not getting paid what they should be and people have very bad working conditions, where getting seriously injured could happen at any time.

"Under Armour (UA) competes in an industry that faces ethical challenges in all operations.“  Many people are wondering how Under Armour is able to mass produce their product if they are buying their materials from overseas and if they use sweatshops or factories that force child labor. UA is leading the way in combating those ethical challenges through successful tactics that make them stand out from competitors. Under Armour has proven financially that it has been able to outperform its competition, such as Nike and Adidas, along with many other sports brands with apparel designed to help athletes perform better.

A  Supplier Code of Conduct says that, “Under Armour suppliers' and their subcontractors' must deal with their employees in a legal, ethical and equitable manner.”  They specifically state they will not buy products from suppliers that use any forced labor or child employees under the age of 15.  Suppliers and contractors must provide safe, healthy working conditions, reasonable working hours and a fair wage to all workers.  Under Armour is defending their company by saying that they do not buy materials and products from places that have forced labor; they have good working conditions and employees are paid the right amount.  Ultimately, “Under Armour suppliers and their subcontractors must be ethical in their business practices.”

"Under Armour seeks to work with third party suppliers that treat their employees with respect and provide appropriate working conditions for their employees."  Many questions have been raised about how has Under Armour been able to use sweatshops and not gotten in any trouble for the way they get their materials and products. Sweatshops are workplaces where basic worker rights are not respected. Under Armour is in business to make money.  If they are going to be successful they have to get products and materials at a low cost and that comes from countries outside of the U.S.  Under Armour wants employees paid fairly, but in other countries, that is a lot less than what U.S. workers would be paid.  The goal of a factory is to mass produce materials.  But people need good working conditions and need to be paid enough money for the type of work they are expected to do.

Under Armour is saying the right things.  They want employees, suppliers and contractors treated ethically, fairly and with respect.  Their clothes and other products are very popular, so hopefully if the company continues to make money, they will share money with their workers.

Redskins

Redskin Paper

Many people believe that racism no longer exists in sports, but did you know that one of the National Football League’s (NFL) most successful franchises has a racist name? It’s the Washington Redskins.  For the first time in a long time, the people of the Native American community are having an effect worldwide on the Redskins’ name.

The Native Americans have been protesting the Redskins’ name for many years.  In the early years of the Redskins, the Native Americans had no effect on the organization.   In  the last couple of years, the impact of social media and news of protests  seems to be getting to the Redskins owner, Dan Snyder. Native Americans have protested, written letters and set up meetings with the NFL.  All of this seems to have Dan Snyder searching for answers on why he should keep the name. The most consistent answer Dan Snyder uses is that it is part of tradition and they have used the name forever.

Many people do not want to change the name because of tradition. The Redskins have had this name for over 70 years. The Redskins have won three Super Bowls and have a rich tradition. The Redskins have a large and passionate fan base. Most of the people do not want it to change because of the tradition. One team (The North Dakota Sioux) have long history and a good team. They changed their name just to North Dakota. The Washington Bullets changed their name to the Washington wizards because Washington was known as the murder capital of the world and the name gave them a bad reputation.

One of the biggest reasons for not changing the name is money. The world revolves around money so why would you spend money just to change a name. Changing the name would run from $500,000 to 1 million dollars. The real expense would be changing the logo in the middle of FedEx field and changing the sign on top of the stadium. Even though the Redskins are one of the most wealthy franchises in sports.

Because of the controversy the name has caused and the impact the name has caused on the Native American community. Many fans and people who think the name is offensive think that the NFL has an obligation to change the name so it won’t offend anyone.

Teenage Jobs

Teenage Jobs Affecting School Performance

Blake Longhenry

        Almost every teenager attends school. Many teenagers also have a job. Having a job while attending school takes a toll on some students. They’re tired and have a hard time keeping up on their school work.

Teenagers have jobs for many reasons.  Some reasons are to support their family, have spending money for themselves or saving for their future. Most teenagers are paid minimum wage and work around five hours after school.

If a teenager works four hours right after school, they will have only three free hours to choose between a social life and school work to get the recommended eight hours of sleep. If a teenager happens to stay up later, they will most likely be tired when they get to school because they didn't get the recommended eight hours of sleep.

“I can’t keep my eyes open in class,” said Mason Hille a student at Rosemount High School who also works at Paradise Car wash. On some nights, Mason has to go right from work to hockey or lacrosse practice. “Studies have shown that school does start too early and it was all lined up for us to start later. It was because of the bus situation that we can’t,” said Dr. Conboy, an administrator at Rosemount High School. The buses in the school district start picking up and drop off the high school students, then pick up and drop off the middle school students, and then pick up and drop off the elementary school students.  If the school changed its start time, it would push the middle school and elementary school times later, which isn't desirable.

If the reason why kids need to go to school is to succeed and get good grades, then why wouldn't the school start later to help the students do better in school? “If school started later, I would stay up later,” said Jake Simonet, a student at Rosemount High School. This is another argument for not starting school later.  Many students would just stay up later and still wouldn't get the recommended amount of sleep.

Starting school later and getting the recommended amount of sleep would give working students an extra hour or two to finish their homework and spend time with their family. Going back sixty or seventy years, school was not as important as a job. Kids would work all day on the family farm and not have time for school. It was not that big of a deal if a high school student didn't do well in school because they most likely were not going to go to college but instead would work in their family business after graduation.  Now, school is much more important.  If one doesn't do well in high school, then it is very difficult to get into college. If a person doesn't go to college, the chances of them succeeding is reduced. The first thing most job interviewers look for in a candidate is where they attended college and what degree they hold.

If you’re a student and your job is causing you to do poorly in school, this job may affect the type of job you have in the future.

Small School Lunches

Blake Longhenry

Small Lunches

Teenagers go to school for nine months out of the year. Throughout those days, kids go through a lot and the one thing most kids look forward to… be lunch. Nowadays lunch isn’t filling anyone up.

In elementary school the lunches tasted good and filled up almost everyone. Now it seems the lunches have not changed size but instead have gotten healthier which too many kids mean the lunches taste worse. Six mini corndogs might have been enough to get an elementary school student through the day in but in high school it feels like a snack that never seems to fill anyone up.

Anita Frydenlund a lunch lady at Red Pine Elementary said “The lunches are too small for high school students”. Morgan Longhenry a student at Rosemount High School had a similar statement saying “They are too small and don’t fill me up at all”. When the lunches don’t fill you up then most students go and spend more money on either a double lunch or an a la cart item. The a la cart items are the more “satisfying items” but they are way overpriced. Some kids do not have a la cart which seems crazy because after lunch they won’t be any fuller than they were before.

When you go to school the only thing a kid may eat all day is from the school lunch. A family may not be able to put food on the table or buy a la cart. That kid would not be provided with the proper nutrition and would be hungry almost every day. The lunches have become smaller because of the health issue of obesity in America. They also have become less edible with the addition of whole grain which most people don’t like too much. If a kid doesn’t like the choice of the two lunches, the sandwich/salad bar, doesn’t have a la cart and has a family that doesn’t put enough food on the table then what is

that kid supposed to eat?

Late teachers (Editorial)

Ethan Orrey

Hr-7

Teachers Showing up Late

It has happened a couple of times already this year where teachers have shown up for their own class late.. When asked why teachers give out tardies, many of the responses are similar. They all state, “Because it gives the student discipline when they show up late, and teaches responsibility.” But why do the students need to show up to the class on time when many of the teachers show up late to their own classes?

I have multiple classes throughout my day where I'm stuck waiting outside my class for 5, and sometimes as many as 15 minutes, before the teacher eventually shows up. “If a teacher shows up late to a class, I feel that they should have some type of discipline,” says Kevin McCarthy. It makes sense when a teacher arrives to a class a couple minutes late because, like students, they’re coming from another class, but when they show up 15 minutes late there should be no excuse. It doesn't take 15 minutes to walk from one end of the building to another, which raises another question. What can teachers possibly be doing while they're taking their time getting from class to class in the 15 minute span they take?

Students have always wondered that if a teacher shows up late to a class should the students need to stay in the class. An example of this would be a case where a teacher is more than 20 minutes late, should the students have to attend the class. Most of the class time that has been given for instruction is already been gone, just by that teacher showing up late to their own class. In my personal opinion, I feel that teachers should not be able to give out tardies when they fail to show up on time.

I guess it comes down to respect.  If teachers expect their students to be respectful and show up on time to class, students should be able to expect the same level of respect from their teachers.

Death Penalty (Editorial)

Blake Longhenry And Alex Frydenlund

Period 7

Death Penalty

Death Penalty is a topic that has been talked about for as long as some people can remember. The death penalty is a topic that is looked at different by many different people and I believe that the death penalty is something that should not be an option for the government's use.  There are many reasons the death penalty should be banned a few are they might kill someone wrongfully accused, second it is more expensive, and third its wrong for the government to kilI. I can see why some citizens of the United States see the death penalty as a useful way to punish convicted criminals for doing something so bad that they are killed. Some people do deserve the death penalty, but if the government kills a murderer isn't the government doing the same thing?

The first reason it should be banned is because they might kill an innocent man or woman. Total 140 people have been exonerated since 1973 which means all those innocent people have been on death row and on there way to being executed and and that is something u can never give back to a person after it happened. In 1986 Joseph O’Dell was convicted of murder and rape in the state of Virginia. Throughout his time on death row would often demonstrate his innocence. He even asked the court system for a DNA test but was refused and put to death on July 23rd, 1997. The evidence now supports O’Dell to be innocent. The government could have just murdered an innocent man. That is a risk that the government should not even think about taking.

The death penalty is also more expensive case then a regular one and keeping someone on death row for a year is more expensive than a regular prison. The average death penalty case costs about $1.26 million and non-death penalty cases cost about $740.00  There is no reason to spend the extra money and kill the person than have them serve life in prison and still live. That is just another reason why the death penalty is something that should be banned in all states.

My third and last point is that killing someone is just wrong. I believe and many others also believe that the government should not have the power to kill its own citizens. The government having the power to kill is wrong and they are sometimes doing the same thing that the convict did murder. It doesn't matter if the government kills someone it is still considered murder.