"Do the Paparazzi Have Too Much Freedom?"

Today, I read the debate in Upfront Magazine called "Do the Paparazzi Have Too Much Freedom?" which discussed whether paparazzi's are going to overly extreme lengths to get news stories. This sometimes results in deadly accidents harming them and the people around them.

One side of the debate believes, "we should pass laws to protect the public and prevent paparazzi from stalking stars." Sean Burke, a member of The Paparazzi Reform Initiative, argues that the paparazzi are dangerous to everyone around them. "They'll often speed, run stop signs and traffic lights, and even drive on the wrong side of the road." He believes that all they care about is money and have no regard for any rules or the safety of anyone. For example, in January, "a photographer who had been chasing Justin Bieber's white Ferrari on a Los Angeles highway was hit by a car and killed." Not only can the paparazzi themselves be hurt/killed, but in 1997, Princess Diana was killed in a car accident when trying to avoid the paparazzi.

But on the other side of the debate, Gabe Rottman, from the American Civil Liberties Union, believes that "press freedom for paparazzi is the price we pay for aggressive and independent news-gathering." The First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States, states that the paparazzi have the right to freedom of the press. Gabe also argues that, "though it may be inconvenient to be followed by photographers, celebrities benefit enormously from the publicity." This much is true. Without the press following celebrities around and getting people interested in their lives, many celebrities wouldn't be as famous or successful as they are. Lastly, Rottman argues that even if they do it anyway, "the paparazzi don't have the right to break the law." He agrees with Sean Burke that people can get hurt from the effect of the paparazzi, but believes that they overall help us get news we deserve to see/hear.

I agree with both sides of the debate. I believe, along with Sean Burke, that more restrictions need to be set in order to protect celebrities, paparazzi, and the people around them. But I also agree with Gabe Rottman that nothing can be done preventing them from doing the jobs they have. The police should crack down on paparazzi committing illegal actions, such as breaking in, or speeding, but the paparazzi should have the right to do whatever they want to get pictures or stories, as long as it's legal and not  harming anyone.

"Time for a Raise?"

Today I read Upfront Magazine's article, "Time for a Raise?" that was all about the pros and cons of increasing minimum wage and the effect it would have on the citizens of America and the economy. President Obama wishes to increase minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9.00 an hour. Many employees share his wants, whereas many employers disagree.

Obama argues, "This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families." Raising minimum wage would give citizens more money to go back into the economy, therefore affecting our economy for the better. This raise in wages could boost the amount of pay that about 15 million people recieve. "A full time minimum-wage worker would see an additional $3,500 of income a year." Raising minimum-wage would make a huge difference in many American Citizen's lives.

At the same time, there are many opposers. For one thing, having employers have to pay more to their employees could drive some businesses out of business and increase unemployment rates again. Another opposing factor is that if an employer ends up struggling to make ends meet because of this increase in wages, "he could make less of a profit, raise prices (which could scare off customers), hire fewer workers, or reduce the number of hous each employee works." Any of these decisions could harshly affect any person involved in the business.

Overall, seeing the facts, I personally believe that raising minimum-wage is a bad idea. Although I would love to make an extra $1 per hour when I begin working, I feel that it is best for our economy not to raise the wage by that much. In my opinion, raising wages hurts more than it helps.

"How The Web Changed Music Forever"

I recently read "How the Web Changed Music Forever" in Upfront Magazine. This article was extemely interesting and talked about the effect that the internet has had on the music industry, and more directly, on record companies. In the '90s, the internet stretched the known bounds of music distribution. "Unknown musicians could post music directly to websites and promote it for free, bypassing record companies and going right to the public." This is fantastic for the musicians and artists to get their work out to the people without having to depend on the big record companies. Many famous singers, such as Justin Bieber or Psy, got their careers started by posting on the internet.

Unfortunately, the effect of the web isn't always helpful. "It wreaked havoc on the record industry by making it easy for people to steal copyrighted music, which caused music sales to plummet." So not only is the internet destroying record companies, but at the same time artists and musicians are losing money because fans are getting their music for free. Before the digital age, musicians and record producers were both being paid based on what the fans of the music bought. That seems more fair than allowing fans to steal music, possibly causing their favorite artists to lose money, or possibly (for the less popular artists) go bankrupt.

To try and fix this situation, many record companies have sued illegal music downloading sites and "helped develop formats like iTunes, where customers can legally download music for a small fee." Although iTunes has helped to fix their financial troubles, the music there is still much cheaper now than before the web. Even still, music streaming is legal, causing more and more artists to lose more and more money.

Although the internet has changed the music industry forever, whether it's for the better or the worse depends on the way you look at it.

"Cardboard-on-Wheels"

I read the "Cardboard-on-Wheels" article from Upfront Magazine this week and found it to be very interesting, inspiring, and all-around good natured. It was a reassuring article that shows that there are still good people in the world.

An Israeli inventor, Izhar Gafni, discovered a way to create a bicycle out of cardboard and is trying to figure out a way to distribute the bikes "to the poor in Africa, where many people have to walk miles between villages; and in Asia, where public transportation is very congested." His plan is very cost-efficient; the bikes themselves only cost $20 to create. Also, the bikes are water-ressistant because of the special coating that is put over the carboard.

Although this was a very short article, I feel like there's an important message in it. People like Izhar are hard to find. The type of people that are concerned for others going through hardships in their lives, such as the poor in Africa or the many in Asia. Izhar's idea is revolutionary, yet he is trying to use it for the good of other people rather than to make himself successful.

"F in Grammar? Maybe It's Your Phone's Fault"

This was an article featured in Upfront Magazine that I thought was very important to share. More and more students and young people are struggling with grammar, or just getting too lazy to proofread.

Gena Babineaux, a woman working at the YMCA of Greater Houston, had more than 2,000 job applications for office manager and among them, "Babineaux encountered mountains of misspellings, missing punctuation, spacing mistakes, and abbreviations that are fine in text messages but not in formal writing." She automatically pushes away any application with huge errors. She is just one of the many people who have become annoyed by young people's laziness and increase of writing mistakes. According to Karra Shimabkuro, a high school English teacher, "'IM-ing language. . . has become part of what [students] think is the standard vocabulary.'" The huge field of mistakes seems to be occuring with college applications. These mistakes can cost a student a chance at the school they desire, changing their entire future just because of social media or texting. At the same time, some people say that social media's influence is just the English language evolving.

So what do I think? Is the increasing amount of grammar mistakes just "English evolving"?

If it is, then it's not evolving in the right direction. Whenever I read sentences online with clear, huge mistakes, I begin to wonder if the person who typed it even cared. If they were to take a minute to just go back and re-read once, they would have seen it and fixed it. Honestly, everybody makes mistakes when they write or type, but the number of mistakes is just too much. I agree with Gena Babineaux and the college admissions offices, who believe that errors in applications, whether a job or college application, shows laziness. I do believe that it is caused by technology, including texting, Twitter, Facebook, or even just emailing. Now, I'm not saying that technology is awful. I have family that lives in other states or countries that I can Facebook message and wish a "Happy Birthday" to, to keep in touch and show them I care. I text, but I don't over do it with abbreviations. I always have my phone with me. I can still text with old friends that go to different schools. Technology is great! But the effects that it has on some people are not. Writing is important and you wouldn't want to miss a college or job opportunity that you could've had, had you proofread.

Muslim Veils

In April of 2011 in France, a "burqa ban" was put into action. A burqa is a concealing muslim veil that "covers the entire face and body leaving just a mesh screen to see through."

At first thought this ban seems ridiculous and that there are many anti-muslim feelings throughout France...but if you look at all the facts, I can see their reasoning behind wanting this law. Supporters of this law make their intentions clear. They believe that this law helps muslim women to get out from behind the veils and actively participate in their society. There is a $40,000 fine for any individual forcing a woman to wear the religious veils. "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity." said former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009, before the law was official. People against this law make very valid points as well. They believe that this ban "has had exactly the opposite effect that was intended: oppressing observant Muslim women by, in effect, forcing them to stay close to home." These women cannot go out in public wearing the Muslim veils.

What do I think?

I really think it's awful. Some women are Muslim and choose to wear the veils. I understand that sometimes they are forced to wear them, and I agree with the $40,000 fine against any individual who forces women to wear them, but government should NOT be able to dictate what is okay for women to wear. Freedom of expression. People should be allowed to wear what they want without being fined or judged. I see what France's intentions were for the ban, but I don't, under ANY circumstances, agree with the outcomes.

It's Meghan

Hey!

So I'm Meghan. I'm in eighth grade and I made this blog to post about recent events that have gone on. Most of my posts will be based on articles from Upfront magazine, but if there's anything else I find interesting, I'll share it!