Response on Gun control

My comment on classmate's post

You gave a good idea on gun control, a very hot topic currently. I think we both have the same and opposite ideas here. Guns are dangerous weapons. However, it still depends on how people are using it for. Like you said, it is good to have other people need to be trained to use guns safely. On the other hand, we have to know that sometimes people are out of their controls, they can lose their minds and do crazy stuff. This thing leads to the control on gun ownership. People can protest or can ignore that we need to eliminate or reduce the numbers of people can own guns. But as time goes by, what if so many innocent people are dead like what happened in Connecticut? They would think they had been wrong. Compared to other countries that do not allow people to have guns, we can see a different story. People need to know why the U.S government has let them having guns for, not to kill people but to protect themselves. The best thing the government should do now is having gun training courses for those before they really can have a gun. And they also have physically and mentally check on each of those.

Is IQ important?

Link to this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/08/heritage-report-immigration/2145255/

The first question I need to ask now is if people really care about how smart their employees are or how high their IQs are. As it was said in the article, immigrants seem to have lower IQ than native Americans. It is hard to prove the study is wrong or right, but to give a conclusion on general generations is somehow difficult to agree with. 

We all know that intelligence or IQ is not inherited. If the parents do not have high IQs, it does not mean their kids are going to have low IQs. Furthermore, the same to the immigrants. There is no clue to say they have lower IQs then native American except giving each of them an IQ test. If it happens, what does the matter? Will we not hire someone having low IQ? 

Have a look at the immigrants nowadays, they come to the U.S for their future. Do they really have low IQs? I do not think it that way. At many developed companies, they do have immigrants working for them at higher position than the white natives. Or else, we can look at students from other nations in the U.S universities, some of them study better and even have high grades than other ones. They came to the U.S to have better conditions, better help to improve what they could not when lived back in their countries. It is very common when people reading education news or heard about some Asian, European or African students have been given scholarships from famous universities like Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. 

The important things do not come from IQs, but come from the way they adapt their new lives in the U.S, how they experience and improve themselves to make a better United States in every single category. 

Respond to classmate's post

My comment on my classmate's post http://alecbainter.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-need-for-art-education-nationwide.html 

I do agree with you. Art is not only a subject but is also a hobby. Because of its variety, people have a lot of choices. Moreover, teaching and studying art are relaxed. There is no certain core curriculum that we have to follow. Art exists by its own. Let's think what should we do if we do not have enough time to go home and take a nap after a very stressful natural science class? Going to any art classes is a good idea. We are free to draw our mind by singing, painting, making poem, or composing. 
Making art to be done at nation level is a good idea. It helps students developed step by step, and support their careers if they want to be an artist later on. Furthermore, students can find their talents or their abilities in art that they have not known before. Having art at school is not about teaching or studying, but is about improving a better society that makes students think they do not have to work like a robot without any human's emotions.

For our younger generations

Link to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/keller-about-the-children.html?pagewanted=all

It is hard for the children to accept when there are two "moms" or two "dads" in their family. According to the article, it is also confusing to the readers which side it supports. However, if people do agree with same-sex marriage, they have to respect their kids. There is always difficult to the parents raising their children. And it is harder when they are raised under the same-sex parents.

What would we need to explain when our children see another family with different-sex parents? Should we tell them depending on science? As the very young age, children do not seem to understand what is going on around them. It is said in the article that the children growing up with gay parents is ambiguous. We need to train and prepare them for what life is. They need to deal with so many situations throughout their life. They need to know why they have two "moms" or two "dads". By the way, they are innocent. Maybe they are not given birth from their current parents, but they have got their loves, their hopes and so much on than they have ever expected. They are free to have a better life.

Would they be affected on their future live? It also talks about the possibility of the children if they growing with their true sex or will be like their parents. Now it turns to another story. They just grow up with what they have and turn to what they are supposed to. Straight or gay does not lean on the parents.

Children need to be innocent and be loved from everyone. They will know what they have to know when they get older and be a part in our society.