In Paola Castillo's entry "Punishable Practice?", she explains how for the most part guys seek revenge on their ex-girlfriends by publishing nude images of them on the internet. With the technology available today it becomes more and more easy to share pictures and videos on social networking sites. The victim of this so called "revenge porn"  is usually humiliated and doesn't know what to do. Paola continues to inform us that there is a lack of punishment for the people posting these images. California took the first step and they can be punished with up to half a year in jail and a $1000 fine, but this law only applies if the person was also the photographer. I agree with Paola that both genders can be affected by this. I feel it's very important to educate guys and girls about the aftermath these images can cause to themselves, if they get into the wrong hands. People that receive these pictures should report it to authority figures immediately to protect the privacy of the victim. Also what causes so much harm is that people keep sending those pictures to everyone they know. Like Paola said once the nude images are out there, it's difficult to get them back.

Higher Taxes For Better Education ?

On November 3rd, 2013, The New York Times published the article "Colorado Is Asking Taxpayers for $1 Billion to Help Schools", where author Jack Healy informs the public that Colorado is in need for money to improve education. According to Education Week, Colorado ranks among the bottom 10 states where the education system is slightly behind the national average. There seems to be a growing gap between the wealthy and poorer school districts which forces more and more cuts. The support for the tax increase is also known as Amendment 66. This amendment would require Colorado to spend 43 percent of its budget on schools. In addition it would make full-day kindergarten standard throughout the state. More money would be available to be provided for students with disabilities, don't speak English or come from poor families. Opponents say that the tax increase would burden struggling families and small businesses. Commercials advertise that an average of $133 is sufficient to fund teacher's assistants, art and gym programs and early childhood development.
I am in favor of Amendment 66 because it would improve the current situation for students that are at a financial disadvantage. There will be more programs to aid students that are struggling in certain subjects. Hopefully that will encourage children in the poorer neighborhoods to stay in school and do well. This will also enable schools to purchase computers and raise teacher salaries to improve the way a subject is taught. Also hiring more teachers will allow classrooms to decrease to a more reasonable size. A variety in the curriculum is necessary to build a stable foundation for the future generation. Simply ignoring the issue will further damage the education programs and schools in the poorer districts. Teenagers with no future are more likely to resort to crime which will lead to more problems. I believe Colorado should definitely consider paying the small price now for the big change later.

On October 17th, ThinkProgress published the article "KKK Battles With Town Over Renaming School Named For Klan Founder". In this article, author Annie-Rose Strasser intends to make the residents of Jacksonville, Florida aware that maintaining a high school named after a KKK Grand Wizard sends a strong message to the rest of the country. After the integration law Brown v Board of Education passed, in 1959 school administrators renamed the school to Nathan B. Forrest, a KKK Grand Wizard, to show that they were displeased with the ruling. It was a Jacksonville resident, who started a petition on Change.org to ask the Duval County School Board to change the name. Only about four years ago, the same request failed with a 5 to 2 vote against it, but with the help of change.org 150,000 signatures have been gathered which caught the attention of the board. Even with growing support, the petition's author is facing a group of opponents, the KKK. They argue that Forrest is a honorable man and that the Klan is "protecting defenseless southerners from criminal activities perpetrated by Yankee carpet baggers, scalawags, and many bestial blacks...". The school's superintendent Dr. Nikolai Vitti responds by saying that the name sends a wrong message to the African-American community and plans on opening up a town hall community discussion to further talk about the issue sometime this month.
I agree that keeping the name of the high school sends a bad message to every African-American community across the United States. It's disrespectful looking at how much racism and discrimination they had to face. It's not fair towards students that will constantly be reminded of what crimes the Klan has committed against their ancestors. If the name change won't occur, people will recognize Jacksonville as a city that's still narrow-minded to this day and being the largest, reflecting the rest of Florida. I feel like this issue might have an effect on how Florida will be perceived in the future.

Fair or Unfair ?

On October 4th, 2013, The New York Times published the article "A Second Chance in California" under the editorial section. In this article, the Editorial Board informs us that California passed a bill which prevents employers from performing background checks before applicants have met the minimum job requirement. This bill is intended to remove unfair obstructions that might keep applicants with a criminal record out of the job market.
The Editorial Board department is made up of 17 journalists and is considered separate from the newsroom. The primary audience are people with criminal records that have trouble getting the job they seek. Second, I believe the author is also targeting employers which don't always take consequences into account.
It might be true that 65 million Americans have criminal records, but I don't agree that it shuts them out of work. Most job applications only require you to state felonies you have been convicted of, not minor misdemeanors. So this wouldn't nearly affect as many people as stated in this article. I do think it's biased to perform background checks before the interview process, because the primary purpose would be to weed out candidates rather than finding out if the applicant is harmful to the agency. I feel the board is exaggerating when they state that many released prisoners tend to fall back. They don't provide statistics that prove that the majority of ex-criminals relapse or if any of them were attending rehabilitation programs. It's also not mentioned that there's a possibility that some of these applicants might be more hazardous in the workplace than to society. So in conclusion, I agree that it's acceptable to perform background checks if the conviction is applicable in a specific scenario. Otherwise it would be unfair to applicants that decided to turn their lives around and aren't given a second chance.

On September 23, 2013, The Huffington Post published the article "Food Stamp Cuts Move Ahead In States". According to the article, the Republican dominated House voted to cut $39 billion in the food assistance program over a period of ten years. By trying to end the waivers that allowed 4 million people to receive food stamps, would no longer be eligible after the changes. Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming are already having or planning reductions. Republicans blame the high cost of the program and how it isn't really based on real need. Some states have changed the welfare criteria while other enacted cuts in unemployment insurance. Supporters argue cuts would be a good way to get people back into the labor force. By promising robust job placement and training programs to help people meet work requirements, which possibly allows them to keep their benefits. Others argue that cuts could end flexibility to deal with unemployment. Also the work-requirement policy can have harsh effects for low income individuals. I believe that even if this problem doesn't concern you, it's still important to know. The majority doesn't know how many are affected by these policies that are going to be put into place. It's hard for the poor to survive on the minimum wage alone. Cutting the budget will be a huge blow to many families in need.