Throughout the past century and even a decade before that many changes have been made in society including the way we dress, the information we share with the public, the way we share that information, and even the relationships. Just to get an idea of how things have changed look at the way we dress now compared to the 1920's. Here is a little line of pictures dating all the way back to the style of clothing in the 1920's.
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
As you can see fashion has changed in many ways and it is influenced a lot by what happens in society. I believe that the color and style of clothing can begin to express the economic situations through out the nation. During the Great Depression many families stated that they wore potatoe sacks because their family could not afford any type of fabric that would be used to make trousers or dresses. So their clothes were sown from potatoe sacks. You can tell when most people are homeless because of the clothing they wear. Although all of that is true, history is what truley inspired the designers including the economy and the environment.
Agree with capital punishment? death penalty? execution? If you answered yes to any of those then you believe that the killing of a person by a judicial process as a punishment is acceptable. If you answered no you might believe that the person who may have done a horrendous crime should stay in prison instead of being placed on death row. This is a very controversial issue. One arguement made is the government does not have the right to take a life. Some agree with John Locke stating that life is a natural right along with liberty and property. I personally agree with the death penalty in the terms of a murder; I believe if you take someone elses life you do not deserve yours. There are many other factors that could be a key part of my belief in the death penalty. One factor is maybe the murder was not intentional maybe all the evidence shows that the murder was an act of self defense. The main problem is you never know what truley happened unless you are there. The person convicted although all evidence leads towards them they could be the wrong person. You never know, the person could of been set up, anything could of happened and one of the pther problems is people are capable of lying about anything.
According to a recent poll conducted by gallup.com majority of the public agrees with my opinion. 64% of the population polled agree with the death penalty. 69% of those people are white, 58% are women, 78% are republicans. I could fall under any of those three groups.
Television has changed in so many ways since it first was manufactured. One of the many changes includes what is actually shown on the screen. When the television first came out in the early 1930's it began with only showing news programs but now it has developed into a main part of many americans' lives not only showing the news at least four times a day on the main stations but also offerring extra add ons, such as cable or satellite, allowing a person to have up to or over a thousand options on channels. Some believe television has become too much of a distraction in our lives and others feel as though television can be very helpful if used in a positive way. I believe television is way too much of a distraction. Although those are two very valid points one of the more controversial subjects pertaining to telvision is not only what television should be able to broadcast but what they should have to censor in relevance to not only the words spoken but what is shown. One example is should television have to beep out the word bitch? or should they be allowed to broadcast it? This relates to the idea that television has a huge influence on teenagers. So what is "appropriate" to show? and what is deamed as "innapropriate"?
Bill O'Reilly has a heated debate about what is shown on television with Steve Allen (a comedian and activist) in his book The No Spin Zone. Here is a small excerpt from their debate about television:
"ALLEN: The problem with TV, which comes into our homes, is that seven- and eight-year-old children are now seeing a hell of a lot of vulgarity, and I haven't been able to hear anyone tell me that's good for the children or for the country. O'REILLY: Do you think watching these prgrams makes kids want to have sex? ALLEN: No. Mother Nature makes them want to have sex. "
I do not think you can agree with either of the two in this arguement because both of their points go hand in hand. I think O'Reilly was just "playing the devil" in making that statement.
I believe that television is beginning to go too far. It distracts me way too much as well. I just hope that it does not continue to become more and more tolerant with the amount of skin that is shown on the screen because after all adults are not the only ones who can press the on button of the TV.
Are you distracted by the TV? Do you think that TV has gone too far?
Through out the past few years certain genres of music have been considered derogitory. One that has especially gained the spotlight for its use of not only violent but sexual lyrics is rap. Rap actually falls under the Hip Hop genre. Rapping began in the late 1970's but its popularity has grown tremendously over the years. It was considered part of the "hip hop scene" which included not only rap but break dancing, graffiti artists, and DJ or MCs. It began in the streets of New York City but it is not spread through out the entire world. A new style of rap came about in the 1990's and became popular quite fast, it was known as gangsta rap. This style mainly gained the ears of teenagers. Many people believe it was due to the amount of profanity and violence mentioned within its lyrics. Within the past two decades many public figures have spoke out against rap, majority of them mentioning that the lyrics, whether they mention killing a cop or raping a girl, influence children.
Bill O'Reilly, amoung the other public figures, made a very persuasive arguement with a rapper by the name of P-Diddy (Sean Combs) in his book The No Spin Zone. To get an idea of the debate between the two here is a little excerpt.
"Combs: ......We had to sing our problems away and we had to sing to help get things better. And right now that's the way a rap song may feel to an inner-city kid who has to deal with being trapped in a bad situation. O'Reilly: But do you go too far with the cop-killing lyrics and the bitch stuff?"
O'Reilly's opinion is clear in his book. Through out the entire chapter he repeatedly mentions all of the bad situations that rappers have gotten themselves into. Based off all of his statements you could infer that he does not agree that rap helps people deal with their problems, but on the contrary it creates more problems by making people act out in a violent matter.
While O'Reilly is welcome to his opinion there is a complete different side to this arguement. Many people believe that rap is a good source for problems. Some even believe that listening can help remove your mind from reality and just get away from all your problems for awhile. Obviously, P-Diddy is on this side of the arguement. He believes that his music helps teenagers avoid violence in many ways. One way would be the teenager listening to his music and realizing that someone relates.
I personally do not completely agree with either side. I agree with Bill O'Reilly in the aspect of some artists going to far with their profanity. I believe there is no point in me listening to a song if every other word is a curse word and there is no message within the song. I also agree with P-Diddy in the aspect of there are other things that Bill O'Reilly does not know or maybe even understand. It is hard to take a side when the positives and negatives of the situation cancel one another out.
