Today the New York Post did something that the world is condemning it for. The NY Post published a photo of a man who was about to die.
In NY City, you have to be careful when you ride the subway. There are many crazy people here and in the past some crazy people have pushed other people onto the subway tracks as a subway train was approaching. This happened yesterday.
Unbelievably, a person took a picture of the man who was about to be hit by the train. Instead of this photographer trying to help the man, he took a photo. The New York Post printed this photo on its front page.
I do not even want to post the link to this photo, but here it is. http://now.msn.com/new-york-post-criticized-for-cover-photograph-of-man-about-to-die-on-subway-tracks
Nobody could have offered this guy a helping hand? Someone had to take a photo instead?
1) What is your general response to what the NY Post did?
2) What is your opinion of the photographer?
3) If you had been at the platform, and you saw the man being pushed over the side onto the tracks, what would you have done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm the guy who caused the "scandal" in Asia two years ago :P
http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20100511000742
http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20100512000682
Yes,
I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But
You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Newark New Jersey Mayor Living on "Food Stamps"
"Food stamps" are not really "stamps." They used to be stamps but now a person who receives "food stamps" receives a type of debit card which he/she can use at a super market or grocery store to get free food.
The Mayor of Newark, New Jersey wants people to focus on the issue of food stamps, so he is going to try to survive for one week by just using the average amount of money that an average food stamp user uses. That comes to about $5 per day. By the way, this does not necessarily mean that people are expected to live on $5 per day for food. Many food stamp users have a source of income, but it is quite low, so they are often able to add to this small sum or other people in the family also receive food stamps so they can "pool" their resources. Very poor people also often take advantage of free food give-aways at local churches and social services programs. Nevertheless, the Mayor will be living on about $5 a day (for food) for one week.
Apparently he wants people in America to be more aware of how little the government is providing to poor people for food. Many people attack the "food stamps" program as being wasteful or too generous. This mayor wants to show that people can buy very little with what they receive.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/04/booker-food-stamps-newark/1745451/
1) How do you feel about this gesture?
2) Do you think that more money should be provided to poor people for food? This will, of course, mean higher taxes for everyone else.
3) The Mayor of Newark will be running for Governor soon. Do you think he is trying to generate positive publicity for himself, or based on the article, do you think he truly cares about the poor?
4) Do you think there should be a limit of time that a person may use food stamps, or should there be a requirement that the person looks for or obtains work?
The Mayor of Newark, New Jersey wants people to focus on the issue of food stamps, so he is going to try to survive for one week by just using the average amount of money that an average food stamp user uses. That comes to about $5 per day. By the way, this does not necessarily mean that people are expected to live on $5 per day for food. Many food stamp users have a source of income, but it is quite low, so they are often able to add to this small sum or other people in the family also receive food stamps so they can "pool" their resources. Very poor people also often take advantage of free food give-aways at local churches and social services programs. Nevertheless, the Mayor will be living on about $5 a day (for food) for one week.
Apparently he wants people in America to be more aware of how little the government is providing to poor people for food. Many people attack the "food stamps" program as being wasteful or too generous. This mayor wants to show that people can buy very little with what they receive.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/04/booker-food-stamps-newark/1745451/
1) How do you feel about this gesture?
2) Do you think that more money should be provided to poor people for food? This will, of course, mean higher taxes for everyone else.
3) The Mayor of Newark will be running for Governor soon. Do you think he is trying to generate positive publicity for himself, or based on the article, do you think he truly cares about the poor?
4) Do you think there should be a limit of time that a person may use food stamps, or should there be a requirement that the person looks for or obtains work?
Monday, December 3, 2012
Longer School Days Will Mean Better Test Scores?
It's no secret that the American school system is underperforming. This is especially true for students in America's inner-cities, where Black and Latino students do not perform as well on standardized exams as White and Asian students.
There have been a number of proposed solutions to the inequality and underperformance of the American educational system. One big trend is "teacher accountability." According to proponents of this trend, better teachers and lower class sizes will mean better academic performance for all students.
There are others, however, who point to the Coleman Report of 1964, which indicated that students tend to underperform when they come from areas of poverty, violence and broken homes. Proponents of this approach suggest that if the government can create anti-poverty programs (similar to those which were created in the 1960s) this would also help students perform better in school. If students come from very poor and violent environments, this adversely affects their ability to do well in school. Fix this social and economic problem and you'll find that the schools work afterall.
Now there's a new approach. In five states students will be kept in school longer. It is felt this will improve academic performance (without having to create an anti-poverty program).
http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=05ac0527-f968-44d6-8873-34adf00854ee
1) Which of the three aproaches do you think will work best? Teacher accountability, anti-poverty programs or longer school days?
2) Do you believe that longer school days will work? For how long can students focus on academic work? Shouldn't students have time to pursue recreational and sports activities and socialize?
3) Do you feel that there is a significant problem with US schools? After all, almost everyone in the world wants to attend a US university?
4) Why do you feel that Blacks and Latinos are far underperforming White and Asian students? What do you think should be done?
There have been a number of proposed solutions to the inequality and underperformance of the American educational system. One big trend is "teacher accountability." According to proponents of this trend, better teachers and lower class sizes will mean better academic performance for all students.
There are others, however, who point to the Coleman Report of 1964, which indicated that students tend to underperform when they come from areas of poverty, violence and broken homes. Proponents of this approach suggest that if the government can create anti-poverty programs (similar to those which were created in the 1960s) this would also help students perform better in school. If students come from very poor and violent environments, this adversely affects their ability to do well in school. Fix this social and economic problem and you'll find that the schools work afterall.
Now there's a new approach. In five states students will be kept in school longer. It is felt this will improve academic performance (without having to create an anti-poverty program).
http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=05ac0527-f968-44d6-8873-34adf00854ee
1) Which of the three aproaches do you think will work best? Teacher accountability, anti-poverty programs or longer school days?
2) Do you believe that longer school days will work? For how long can students focus on academic work? Shouldn't students have time to pursue recreational and sports activities and socialize?
3) Do you feel that there is a significant problem with US schools? After all, almost everyone in the world wants to attend a US university?
4) Why do you feel that Blacks and Latinos are far underperforming White and Asian students? What do you think should be done?
Fake Homeless Man "Scams" NY Police Officer for Free Boots
There was a story that was in many newspapers around the world last week, concerning a NY City police officer who saw a man lying on a sidewalk with no shoes on his feet. When this happened it was freezing cold outside and the officer went into a shoe store and bought shoes for the homeless man.
Yet, there seemed to be something strange about the story to me. The apparently homeless man was deliberately lying in front of a shoe store in Times Square with no shoes. To me, it seemed as if he was trying to make tourists feel sorry enough for him so that they might actually go in the store and buy him a pair of shoes or at least give him some money. The fact that this "homeless" guy was deliberately sitting on the ground without shoes seemed a deliberate ploy (scheme, plan) to make people feel sorry enough for him that they might give him something.
This is what the cop did.
Now, there is a new story that the "homeless" man has been seen around the city without shoes again! Therefore, it seems that the "homeless" man really does not need shoes, but merely takes his shoes off to trick or fool cops and tourists into giving him money and shoes.
This is called a "scam." This is when someone tricks another person into giving him/her money. On the subways there are lots of these scams. Women will sometimes even bring children onto the subway and claim they are homeless and hungry to get people to give them money.
What is shocking to me is that the City of New York actively warns people NOT to give any money to any beggars. There are about 100 free food programs in New York City and many free clothing programs. There are also homeless shelters where the homeless may go. The City of New York points out that if a beggar is asking for money, he/she probably wants it for drugs or alcohol. Help is available in New York to anyone who wants it.
So basically, the cop wanted to be a good samaritan, but became a scam victim instead. He did not follow the advice his own government bosses give to people about giving things to beggars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50052716/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
New Story!!!! The "homeless" guy is not even homeless. Basically, and I am sorry to say this, this news makes the NY police officer really seem ridiculous. He totally got scammed. Even though the city warns people not to give money to beggars, he did so.
http://news.msn.com/us/shoeless-nyc-man-isnt-homeless-after-all
1) Do you agree with my theory?
2) Does this make the cop look foolish to you, or is he still a hero?
3) Do you provide money to beggars on the subway? Why or why not?
4) Do you provide money to street musicians on the streets?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS
Yet, there seemed to be something strange about the story to me. The apparently homeless man was deliberately lying in front of a shoe store in Times Square with no shoes. To me, it seemed as if he was trying to make tourists feel sorry enough for him so that they might actually go in the store and buy him a pair of shoes or at least give him some money. The fact that this "homeless" guy was deliberately sitting on the ground without shoes seemed a deliberate ploy (scheme, plan) to make people feel sorry enough for him that they might give him something.
This is what the cop did.
Now, there is a new story that the "homeless" man has been seen around the city without shoes again! Therefore, it seems that the "homeless" man really does not need shoes, but merely takes his shoes off to trick or fool cops and tourists into giving him money and shoes.
This is called a "scam." This is when someone tricks another person into giving him/her money. On the subways there are lots of these scams. Women will sometimes even bring children onto the subway and claim they are homeless and hungry to get people to give them money.
What is shocking to me is that the City of New York actively warns people NOT to give any money to any beggars. There are about 100 free food programs in New York City and many free clothing programs. There are also homeless shelters where the homeless may go. The City of New York points out that if a beggar is asking for money, he/she probably wants it for drugs or alcohol. Help is available in New York to anyone who wants it.
So basically, the cop wanted to be a good samaritan, but became a scam victim instead. He did not follow the advice his own government bosses give to people about giving things to beggars.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50052716/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times
New Story!!!! The "homeless" guy is not even homeless. Basically, and I am sorry to say this, this news makes the NY police officer really seem ridiculous. He totally got scammed. Even though the city warns people not to give money to beggars, he did so.
http://news.msn.com/us/shoeless-nyc-man-isnt-homeless-after-all
1) Do you agree with my theory?
2) Does this make the cop look foolish to you, or is he still a hero?
3) Do you provide money to beggars on the subway? Why or why not?
4) Do you provide money to street musicians on the streets?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm also the guy who wrote the very funny ESL book: New York City Sucks, But You'll Wanna Live Here Anyway http://www.amazon.com/Sucks-Youll-Wanna-Anyway-ebook/dp/B004TSPAQS
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Is The US Military Abusing The "WikiLeaks" Soldier?
A while ago a low-ranking US soldier took many secret documents and sent them to the website WikiLeaks to reveal what the US military was doing in its two foreign wars.
This soldier was arrested and is being held in a military prison until his trial. His attorney claims that this young man is being abused by the US military. The abuse includes keeping him naked and isolated in a prison cell 23 to 24 hours a day.
Here is an article about this: http://news.yahoo.com/counselor-mannings-history-showed-self-harm-risk-175239354.html
1) Do you think this soldier was a hero or a villain?
2) Do you feel that he is being abused by the US military? The military claims that they took away his clothes to keep him from killing himself, but he claims he is being punished for not talking to prison authorities.
3) Do you think the US government is justified in bringing him to trial for handing over the secrets to Wikileaks? Do you think this soldier was trying to stop the wars or do you think he had other motives? What do you think his ulterior (other, hidden) motives might have been?
4) The United States would also like to put the founder of WikiLeaks on trial. What do you think of this situation?
This soldier was arrested and is being held in a military prison until his trial. His attorney claims that this young man is being abused by the US military. The abuse includes keeping him naked and isolated in a prison cell 23 to 24 hours a day.
Here is an article about this: http://news.yahoo.com/counselor-mannings-history-showed-self-harm-risk-175239354.html
1) Do you think this soldier was a hero or a villain?
2) Do you feel that he is being abused by the US military? The military claims that they took away his clothes to keep him from killing himself, but he claims he is being punished for not talking to prison authorities.
3) Do you think the US government is justified in bringing him to trial for handing over the secrets to Wikileaks? Do you think this soldier was trying to stop the wars or do you think he had other motives? What do you think his ulterior (other, hidden) motives might have been?
4) The United States would also like to put the founder of WikiLeaks on trial. What do you think of this situation?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Actress Attempts to Remove Hate-Filled Film from Youtube
The movie "Innocence of Muslims" became one of the most controversial films of the year when it caused protests in various Muslim countries.
One of the actresses in the film attempted to have the film removed from youtube because she said that the director lied to her about the nature of the film, and dubbed (replaced) new lines over the lines she spoke. Therefore, she stated that her life was now in danger because it appears that she makes many statements attacking Islam.
Unfortunately, a judge refused to allow this film to be removed from youtube.
There are, of course, limits to "free speech." A person cannot make deliberately false statements about another person or use speech to cause violence. The judge, apparently, however, felt that the film was protected by the 1st Amendment.
Interestingly, President Obama asked that the film be removed from youtube even if it was protected by the right to freedom of speech. It is up to each web site as to whether it allows "controversial" material, and most web sites will voluntarily remove hate-filled and malicious content for the good of the community. Google (which owns youtube) refused to do this.
http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=777707
1) Do you think that Google should have removed this video even if it is protected by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression? After all, the film is truly badly written, edited and directed and presents false and hate-filled messages about a religion.
2) Do you think that Google is "required" somehow to present anything that anyone posts? For instance, here's an analogy: Let's say you own a bookstore and an author comes in and tries to encourage you to sell copies of his book which seems to be attacking a religion or religious figure in a hate-filled manner. He assures you that the book is protected by the First Amendment and that many copies of the book can be sold. Would you sell that type of book?
3) Why do you think Google refused to remove the video even though the president of the US asked them to? Some people feel that Google is more interested in profits than the 1st Amendment and does not want to spend money monitoring or policing or removing negative content from their search engine and youtube. For instance, an argument might be that it might cost a great deal of money to hire an appropriate staff to remove "objectionable" content from the Google search engine and youtube. Google may not want to spend this money.
4) Do you think the actress was right to ask that the film be removed because it makes her seem anti-Islamic?
5) Do you think the sometimes violent protests against this film were justified?
6) Did you see the film? What is your response to this film? If you did not see the film/video, why didn't you watch it?
"Pink" Taxis in Mexico, Just for Women
Many women around the world complain about their treatment by taxi drivers. Even in NY City many women claim that the drivers flirt with them or hit on them (try to pick them up or take them out on dates). Many women simply do not feel safe hailing (trying to stop) a taxi cab.
In Mexico, therefore, a couple years ago, they addressed this situation by establishing taxis purely for women. These taxis are called "Pink" taxis and are driven by women for women. This is similar to a system in some countries where there are separate subway cars for women. Here is an article about this phenomenon:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33385984/ns/world_news-americas/t/mexicos-pink-taxis-cater-fed-up-females/
1) Critics of this policy say it is discriminatory. Do you think the taxis discriminate against men?
2) Critics also say that pink taxis do not solve the serious "social problem" of sexual harassment. How would you respond to this criticism?
3) Do you think pink taxis are a good idea?
4) In general, taxi drivers in NY City have acquired a terrible reputation. They often cheat passengers and are rude. Do you have any taxi driver "horror stories?"
5) Do you think separate subway cars should also be established in major cities for women?
In Mexico, therefore, a couple years ago, they addressed this situation by establishing taxis purely for women. These taxis are called "Pink" taxis and are driven by women for women. This is similar to a system in some countries where there are separate subway cars for women. Here is an article about this phenomenon:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33385984/ns/world_news-americas/t/mexicos-pink-taxis-cater-fed-up-females/
1) Critics of this policy say it is discriminatory. Do you think the taxis discriminate against men?
2) Critics also say that pink taxis do not solve the serious "social problem" of sexual harassment. How would you respond to this criticism?
3) Do you think pink taxis are a good idea?
4) In general, taxi drivers in NY City have acquired a terrible reputation. They often cheat passengers and are rude. Do you have any taxi driver "horror stories?"
5) Do you think separate subway cars should also be established in major cities for women?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)