You are on page 1of 15

Advantages and Disadvantages of CCTV Cameras CCTV Monitoring CCTV for Surveillance CCTV camera system is being widely

employed as a security system for surveillance in offices as well as homes. It is used for monitoring purposes to keep a close vigil. Not only in closed or private places; CCTV camera system extends as a security system in public and crowded places like traffic intersections, malls, shops, etc. As with the case of any technology or security system device, a CCTV camera system has its own pros and cons. Advantages of CCTV Camera System 1.Deters Crime The presence of CCTV camera system for surveillance will reduce petty thefts and vandalism in shops, malls and other public places. Since the activities are being monitored, fewer nuisances are likely to be created. It also reduces the losses due to shoplifting. 2.Helps Maintain Records The images and videos captured by a CCTV camera system are often recorded and stored into a database. These are helpful in maintaining records so that they can be easily retrieved later, when needed. 3.Protects Employees This is particularly helpful in customer service centers. The employees providing customer service may sometimes be subjected to verbal abuse or physical attacks. CCTV camera system helps to identify such instances and act immediately. It is also helpful to keep a tab on the activities of the employees. 4.For Evidence in Lawsuits In legal cases of thefts and other forms of crime, videos and images provided by the CCTV camera system can serve as a valid proof and evidence against the defaulter. This assists in making legal claims as well. Disadvantages of CCTV Camera System 1.Do Not Work Always CCTV camera system cannot monitor every area of your office or home at all times. Hence it cannot be considered as a foolproof method for crime prevention. 2.Privacy Concerns Invasion of privacy is the major issue when it comes to any security system device like the CCTV camera system. It lowers the employee morale and hampers productivity at times. Constant monitoring of every activity might put the workers ill at ease. 3.Initial Costs The initial costs incurred per camera are high. The installation may also increase the initial expenditure. It depends upon the complexity of the CCTV camera system as well. Advantages & Disadvantages of Allowing Cell Phones in School By Gregory Hamel, eHow Contributor Print this article

Cellular phones are becoming increasingly common in high schools, middle schools and even grade schools. Cell phone use in school is often considered a problem by parents and teachers, prompting many schools to ban cell phone use completely. While there are several significant disadvantages to allowing cell phones in school, there are also some legitimate reasons kids should be allowed to carry phones. Other People Are Reading Disadvantages of Cell Phones Advantages of Mobile Phones in School Distraction Perhaps the largest drawback to allowing cell phones in schools is that they can become an ever-present distraction for students. While it is often easy for teachers to spot and reprimand students that talk in class, cell phone texting is more difficult to punish since it is silent and devices can be concealed under desks. Even if teachers do not allow cell phone use in their classrooms, students can become distracted if they receive incoming calls or messages, and phones ringing or vibrating can disrupt class. Another drawback of allowing cell phones is that they can be used to cheat during quizzes and exams. A student could receive silent text messages from a friend that has already taken a certain exam during a test. Parent Communication One of the benefits of allowing cell phones in schools is that it allows parents to communicate with children at any time. In the past, parents often never knew where their children were until they came home. With cell phones, parents can check up on kids and arrange transportation or relay important information if necessary. Sponsored Links Introduction to MHL Learn about MHL, the New Mobile-to-TV Protocol Emergencies Cell phones can be an invaluable tool in emergency situations. For instance, if a student is severely injured or there is a crisis situation, cell phones can allow students to contact authorities for help. This can be especially important for students that drive to school. On the other hand, cell phones can have some drawbacks in emergency situations. It is possible that mass cell phone use during an emergency will clog communication systems. Cell phones can also be used by students to create false emergencies in an attempt to get out of class. Enforcing Rules Banning cell phones presents the problem of enforceability. Even if a school or a certain class does not allow cell phone use, students may ignore the rules, and it can be difficult to catch cell phone users. Even if they are caught, enforcing rules takes time and creates a distraction in and of itself. Some feel it may be better to allow students that want to distract themselves with texting to do so, rather than force the entire class to wait as the texter is reprimanded by the teacher. The Advantages & Disadvantages of School Uniforms By Nicole Crawford, eHow Contributor , last updated April 18, 2012 Print this article The Advantages & Disadvantages of School Uniforms According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the number of public schools that implement a school uniform has significantly risen in the last 10 years. In 1999, 12 percent of public schools had a uniform. By 2008, 18 percent had adopted a uniform for students. The

NCES considers school uniforms to be an "indicator of school crime and safety," and safety is one of the top advantages of school uniforms. However, a strict uniform policy also has its disadvantages, and there have been numerous controversies generated by their use. Other People Are Reading Benefits of School Uniforms The Problems With School Uniforms Advantage: Safety Concerns School uniforms restrict the ability of students to wear gang-related clothing. According to an article featured at, "Dress codes are supposed to reduce violence and bullying by taking style differences out of the equation." As noted by the National School Safety and Security Services' article, "School Uniforms, Dress Codes, & Book Bags," uniforms may also reduce the risk of student robbery and carrying of weapons. Advantage: Simplicity As noted at Education, a school uniform policy is much easier to control and enforce than a more lenient dress code. Uniforms also make it easier for teachers to recognize any nonstudents and keep track of their group of students at school events and field trips. Sponsored Links Reach Cambridge International summer school for teens based in Cambridge, England. Advantage: Equality and Community School uniforms reinforce the idea that all students are equal, despite a diversity of races and cultural backgrounds. Students are less likely to form cliques or bully certain member of the class for not being up to the latest fashion. Having a school uniform may also lead to a greater sense of community and unity, as noted in the article "Public School Uniform Debate" at Education Disadvantage: Lack of Expression Many opponents of school uniforms argue that wearing a uniform suppresses a student's right to free speech or expression. In 1969, the first court ruling regarding school uniforms was related to this issue. When two high school students in Des Moines, Iowa wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, they were suspended and sent home until the armbands were removed. The families of the students filed a complaint, and the case, called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in the students' favor and emphasized students' rights to free speech, stating that "A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments." Many parents and administrators believe that school uniforms are in conflict with this fundamental right. Disadvantage: Economic Concerns School uniforms can be quite expensive, and economic concerns are another commonly noted disadvantage of their use. Of course, buying children uniforms does cut back on the amount of "normal" back-to-school clothing that parents must purchase. Disadvantage: Ineffectiveness School uniforms are often criticized for being simply ineffective. A student named Grace Davis, cited in MSNBC's article on school uniform controversy, sums up this disadvantage of uniforms: “It doesn’t fix the disease. It just covers the symptoms. I think we’re still going to have the same gang problem. We’re just going to be angry at the administration, and I don’t think that’s the way to go.” Pros And Cons Of Death Penalty

54 6 StumbleUpon1 Death penalty or capital punishment has been debated over since ages and still remains a reality in a number of states across the world. U.S, India, China and many other countries grant capital punishment for the most heinous crimes, even as the human rights activists continue to take the bull by its horns every time a death penalty is issued. Executions are considered to be the ultimate punishment provided the crime committed also exemplifies ruthlessness in its extreme. The article attempts to view capital punishment from a more balanced perspective by dwelling at length on both sides of the coin. Read on to know the pros and cons of death penalty. Advantages & Disadvantages Of Capital Punishment Pros The cost of imprisoning a criminal, serving a life term or otherwise long term, is very expensive when compared with the costs involved in execution of the same person. Capital punishment is, therefore, considered to be cost-effective. There are many who offer the logic that the more severe the crime, the harsher should be the punishment. Death penalty is seen as the most extreme form of punishment, which is generally reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The penalty should fit the crime and in extreme cases, extreme measures should determine the course of justice. It has been argued that capital punishment sets a chilling example for potential criminals and serves as an effective deterrent. It will dissuade criminals-in-the-making by instilling fear in their minds. Death penalty also ensures the safety of rest of the prison inmates as statistics establish that most of the capitally punished criminals are violent and prone to be unpredictable. In a volatile situation, they may endanger the safety of other prisoners. Imprisonment keeps the possibility of a hardened criminal coming out on parole and becoming a threat to civil society, a possibility which is put to rest by execution. There have been many instances of prisoners, out on parole, indulging in criminal behavior taking advantage of their conditional release. Cons While it is argued that capital punishment is cost-effective, most penalty cases are appealed in higher courts, which incur more expenses than execution. The additional procedures and extra appeals thus bring down the cost-effectiveness of death penalties. There are many who argue that capital punishment is barbaric, cruel and blatantly inhuman, no matter how heinous the crime is. The state-sanctioned executions tend to justify the murder of the criminal and defeat the whole logic of death penalty being a fitting punishment for extreme crimes, such as murder itself. Some human rights propagators regard death penalties as a flagrant violation of a person’s right to live. The right to live is a natural right, while the right to live with dignity is a state-granted right. How can a state trample over the natural right of a person to live? Capital punishment doesn’t give a criminal the opportunity to be remorseful of his deeds. Neither does it treat those, who feel guilty for their crimes, a fair opportunity to improve their behavior. There has also been no concrete evidence that capital punishments have been able to deter potential criminals from committing felonies. Justifying death penalties in the name of discouraging future crimes seems to be too simplistic an argument to many. Voting at 16 Here are some advantages of voting at the age of 16: Youth would vote well Young people have a unique perspective , they'll never have those experience again There are no wrong vote Teens are capable of making their own decisions The youth these days are much mature now No difference between a 18 year old voting and a 16 year old voting Since 16 year olds are allowed to work, they should be able to vote The more people voting, the more votes a party gets

16 year olds pay taxes, so they should be able to vote If a 16 year old can be charged as an adult, they should be able to vote

Keep the voting age the same Here are some disadvantages of voting at the age of 16: Young people may not take voting seriously _16 year olds are not mature enough Young people may not take voting seriously Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they can do everything. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights given. Should 12 year olds be allowed to vote because of school policies, should toddlers be allowed to vote because health services affect them? No. We trust the parents to make the best decisions for their families. There are also other ways for minors to have a say such as having a protest. By allowing 16 year olds to vote, they may vote for someone who will allow the use of an illegal drug or make a bad drug cheaper. Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they can do everything. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights given.

Con My opponent failed to define the terms. Because of this, I will now define them: Battle: any conflict or struggle Sports: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature Soccer: A game played on a rectangular field with net goals at either end in which two teams of 11 players each try to drive a ball into the other's goal by kicking, heading, or using any part of the body except the arms and hands. The goalie is the only player who may touch or move the ball with the arms or hands. Basketball: a game played by two teams of usually five players each on a rectangular court having a raised basket or goal at each end, points being scored by tossing the ball through the opponent's basket. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world only because it was created 43 years earlier, giving it more time to spread. This gives soccer an unfair advantage, making your argument invalid. Also, basketball courts have been set up around most locations in the world. This makes basketball very accessible as well. Also, at the private school West Island College in Calgary, AB, which has one of the most advanced Gyms in Calgary, there are 6 basketball nets, yet no proper soccer nets, making basketball more accessible. To clash with your arguments: (1), I will point out the fouls, out of bounds, and timeouts are also in soccer, making this point invalid. (2) Because of the high score, fans can celebrate for many scores, not just wait around for 1 goal, which makes Basketball more exciting. Every point gives excitement to fans watching or people playing. As well, in soccer, if you are down by a few goals, much hope is given up as goals come rarely. In basketball however, it is possible to score many points in little time, giving fans a game to cheer for till the final buzzer, and even after if there is an attempted buzzer beater. (3) Tricks in basketball are just as exciting (alley-oop from behind the net, dunks, very exciting ball dribbling tricks etc.)

I will now state my 3 pillars: 1. Basketball is much more fair: In soccer, the goalkeeper can use their hands, giving them an unfair advantage inside their crease area. In basketball however, all players get the same advantages and disadvantages, making more fair. 2. Basketball referee's in professional are better: Recently, there was a controversial goal assisted by an obvious handball by Thierry Henry of the France national team. It was a miss call by the referee, which, by the way, has not happened in the recent years of professional basketball. I will state and elaborate on my third pillar in my next post. PRO & CONS OF EATING BREAKFAST 0 COMMENTS PRINT May 23, 2011 | By Carly Schuna Photo Credit Waffles with Blueberries Breakfast image by JJAVA from Breakfast isn't always a joy to prepare and eat, especially if you're not a morning person or just don't feel hungry after you wake up. However, there are significant benefits to eating a balanced morning meal, especially if you're trying to slim down, adopt a better diet or stay at a healthy weight. WEIGHT CONTROL Eating breakfast every day tends to reduce your overall hunger, prevent overeating and reduce the risk of obesity, according to dietitian Katherine Zeratsky. She also notes that people who eat breakfast are more likely to make healthy nutritional choices throughout the day and reach for smart snacks and meals rather than quick fixes that provide little more than empty calories. Sponsored Links Manuka Honey Products Buy Manuka honey and propolis products in the Philippines. ENERGY AND FOCUS Your blood sugar levels drop when you sleep, but eating breakfast shortly after you wake up keeps them on track to be level all day. When you skip breakfast and your blood sugar levels stay low, you may feel irritable, experience trouble concentrating and become prone to dizziness, fainting or even hypoglycemia. Having a balanced breakfast also raises your energy level and activates your metabolism, which can increase the likelihood that you'll be physically active throughout the day. TIME AND INVESTMENT One of the primary disadvantages to eating breakfast is that it takes time to prepare. Even if you only plan to down a quick meal like a smoothie, you need to wake up a few minutes early to make it and clean up. To combat the challenge, try a grab-and-go breakfast such as a protein bar or do prep for your morning meal the night before. NUTRITION The foods you choose to eat at breakfast can be either a positive or a negative. Unfortunately, a number of popular breakfast options such as Belgian waffles, doughnuts and sausage links are packed with calories, fat and cholesterol. To get the vitamins, minerals and nutrients your body needs, CookingLight registered dietitian Holley Johnson Grainger recommends choosing a combination of healthy fat, lean protein and high-fiber carbohydrates. Examples include wholewheat toast with peanut butter, low-sugar granola with fresh berries and nonfat yogurt or brown rice porridge with skim milk and a banana.

Pros & Cons of Media Censorship By N.E. Peabody, eHow Contributor Print this article The ongoing debate over media censorship is an important one in today's changing media climate. With many media outlets heading toward more convergent formats, media outlets and the authorities who govern them are constantly forced to evaluate and re-evaluate what makes the cut for broadcast or publication. Censorship affects everyone's lives in ways both harmful and beneficial. Other People Are Reading What Are the Dangers of Censorship? Pros & Cons for Violence on Television Definition According to, to censor can be defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." History Censorship has existed since people first organized into societies. It can be used as a method of governance and control, but can also be used as a form of civil protection, such as protecting young children from graphic or sexual images. Sponsored Links Intraplex® IP Link An affordable IP codec for STL, contribution and distribution Historic Examples Historic examples of censorship include the execution of Socrates in ancient Greece and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (banned books) created by the Catholic Church in the 1600s. Both were authoritative attempts to suppress opposing religious, philosophical and scientific ideas. Censorship Today Today, censorship is generally discussed in the context of mass media. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enforces regulations on what can and can't be shown in U.S. broadcast media such as radio and television. As of yet, attempts to censor and regulate Internet content have been largely unsuccesful. Still, a person may be prosecuted for posting illegal Internet content. Pros The benefits of media censorship include the protection of young children and the filtration of obscene content. Media censorship also helps prevent hate groups and other similar organizations aiming to spread hate speech or related propaganda. Cons Not everyone has the same idea of what images and ideas are appropriate for dissemination. Governments and media conglomerates can use censorship to distort facts or hide truths from ordinary citizens. In some countries, dictators use censorship to further their own agendas while squashing those of the opposition.

Read more: Pros & Cons of Media Censorship |

The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

Animal testing or animal experimentation is the process of using non-humans for the purpose of experimentation. For example, scientists use animal testing to determine the effectiveness and side effects of potentially new medicines to help decide if these medicines are safe for people. I think this is maybe related to why people use "guinea pig" as a term meaning experimentation and sometimes even experimentation on people. Animal testing is extremely controversial, so let’s review both the advantages and disadvantages of animal testing. Reasons For Animal Testing Medical Advancement: The most obvious advantage of animal testing is for medical experimentation. Advancements in medicine help people, animals, and even plants. Unfortunately, the best way to test potentially new medicines is through animal testing, and if initially successful, then by human testing too. It is considered more humane to do medical testing on animals first, then on humans first, for the obvious reason that human life is considered more precious than animals. Additionally, new medicines can also help animals too, so this falls under the philosophy of the needs of the many (animals) outweigh the needs of the few (animals). Meaning the few animals that are sacrificed or tested upon is worth less than the many animals that are potentially saved or helped, thus helping the greater good is more morale. Of course, this opinion is subjective to each person. Product Safety: Another popular reason for animal testing is for determining the safety of products, such as cosmetics testing. In theory, animals used for safety testing are typically not killed and remain healthy, however they are often maltreated. Again, it is commonly considered that the safety of people outweighs the safety of animals, thus animal testing for safety is common. Scientific Knowledge: Animal testing and experimentation is an excellent source to increase scientific knowledge. No one knows what knowledge that will be attained through animal testing, so the value of such animal testing cannot be ascertained ahead of time or even guessed. The most common examples of animal experimentation for scientific knowledge are animal biopsies and vivisections in schools to teach children biology and medical procedures. While this type of animal testing might not yield immediate useful results, it has been helpful in the long term of helping science. Accuracy: Finally, the biggest reason for animal testing is because it works better than any other alternative. Why animal testing can yield results different than human testing, the similarities between animals and humans is staggering and thus helpful to mankind.

Reasons Against Animal Testing Torture and Suffering: Animals undergoing testing can be subjected to torture and suffering. Alternatively in some cases, some animals may be even cured of their ailments and diseases during the process of animal testing. Death: Animals can, and sometimes often, die in the process of animal testing. Ethics/Morality: The ethics and morality of testing on animals is often debated. A large number of people do not believe animal testing is ethical, however they often concede that it is necessary. Choice: Since animals cannot volunteer for animal testing, then some people believe animal testing is not ethical. These people believe that it is only ethical to test on subjects who willingly

give their consent for self testing. Accuracy: As mentioned before, animals are different than people, thus their testing results are not always useful or practical for human comparisons. Therefore, if the usefulness of animal testing is in question, then animal testing should be reconsidered. Price: Finally, the price of keeping and disposing of animals can be quite high. That is why testing, on computer simulations, has increased recently. However, the accuracy of computer simulations is less than animal testing. Unfortunately, there are no better alternatives to animal testing and experimentation. And animal testing has proven itself to be both practical and a reasonably accurate means of testing. So in conclusion, animal testing highlights the fine line between ethics and practical need, and thus becomes very subjective to each person. Honesty: Pros and Cons Honesty: 1) the quality or fact of being honest; upright and fairness. 2) truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness. 3) freedom from deceit or fraud. (from ). Most of us in Western culture (and many others) are verbally taught as a kid that honesty is important. One of the Christian/Judaism Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not lie.” But the key in that sentence is we are verbally taught. What we see happening around us is often quite different, and recent studies suggest it is what we learn on a hidden level that has most effect. For instance, last week I wrote about peanut butter, and about how my mom let me know not to tell Dad I was getting crunchy peanut butter on my toast when he was not around. Or the “white lies,” when you have heard Dad say Aunt Jane’s new hair color looks horrible, but when she asks what he thinks he says, “It’s nice — it makes you look younger.” He knows that is what Aunt Jane wants to hear, and it is easier on a social level to keep her happy. We sometimes lie by omission (as in not telling Dad about the crunchy peanut butter), and sometimes we lie by commission (Aunt Jane’s hair color). In some cultures, kids are taught it is a great skill to lie convincingly. Sometimes it is part of an us versus them mentality, when you tell a fabricated story to a foreigner or someone outside the family clan. Perhaps it is a form of protection. I remember my mom telling me how to lie if I needed to . . . that including part of the truth makes it more believable, and it works better if you do not say too much. The problem with lying is it can be addictive. If you get away with it once, you are apt to try it again. Kids do that, and if they are caught in a lie, how it is handled makes a big difference in whether they continue. The more you lie, the more you tend to believe other people are lying. People lie because they do not want to get in trouble. People lie because they have issues of self-worth, and want others to think better of them. People lie because others try to control them, and lying is a way of taking back control. There are dozens of reasons why people lie, and whether the reasons are good or bad depends on your point of view. Is it more virtuous to lie or not to lie? There is a song, “Long, Black Veil,” about a man who is condemned to death because his alibi is that he was with his best friend’s wife. He does not tell, nor does the woman, and after the accused is dead she walks the hills in a long, black veil. I have always hated that song, because a man’s life is ended to maintain a lie. I had a friend who thought it was a great song, because they lied to uphold honor and friendship. Have you ever noticed older people have a tendency to be more blunt? Sometimes it is because they figure they have a right to their opinions because of their age. Might it also be because they have seen in the long run it is better to be honest? Is honesty the best policy? I guess my response is, it depends. I try to be an honest person in all of my dealings, but I do not use that honesty as a weapon to hurt people.

The Pen Is Mightier Than Sword - Essay ROHIT AGARWAL There is a famous saying that the role of pen is mightier than that of the sword. But unfortunately there are people who believe that the use of force is necessary. The pen expresses a personnel or public opinion. It stands for the press, literature, news-papers, books, and other writings. The purpose of all writing is to connect one's mind with another, to persuade the reader to take up the view which the writer holds on a particular subject. The reader has the right to hold his own view; he may not be convinced of the writer's judgement and opinions presented to him. We may, therefore, say that the pen stands for the peaceful means by which a person is persuaded to accept the views which the writer holds. No force is used to persuade the reader. But a good and forceful writer forms opinion. But the sword on the other hand, stands for force. It forces views on others. If they do not accept those views they must be challenged. The sword, therefore, implies force, not reason. The pen is thus preferred of the two. But the sword has its own uses. In the world, there exist not only good, sincere, honest and responsible people but also those who are wicked, dishonest and unreasonable. No argument will convince them and no eloquence can persuade them. Thus, where arguments fail, the sword succeeds. But this does not mean that the use of the sword is desirable. More often than not the sword has been misused. History shows how kings and generals owed power and used it to oppress the people. Give a man the sword for good purposes and in most cases he will use it for evil purposes. All thoughtful men, therefore, prefer the pen to the sword. The government of today is carried on through the help of the press. We are soon warned if we are in the wrong. No government of today can stand against a powerful pen. The writer or the debater by his writing or reasoning power rules the day. People have a greater faith in the power of the pen than in that of the sword. Both the pen and the sword have their uses in life. Both reason and force properly mixed are necessary for good government. The time has not yet come when people will care for the good of others more than their own. But it is a sign of good times coming. The force is no longer an argument with us. But we have not yet reached the stage when all swords may be beaten into ploughshares. Does True Love Exists? Posted by mmpv – Mar 31, 2010; 9:22am Options Inspired by many romantic movies they have seen or novels they have read, some people believe that such romantic stories could be made real and might happen to them. With this, they allow such to shape their thoughts and therefore creating a standard of their desired love affair. They may choose to seek for someone else greater than those who are at present trying to win their hearts. Usually we choose the ideal partner, possessing the qualities we are looking for. But this usually changes as we acquire more understanding as to what makes a partner ideal, not only for our own taste, but more so to the materialistic eyes of the many. We still manage to look for someone better, compensating whatever deficiency our partner may have, when we are supposed to be contented with the emotional connection alone. We are confused by our material standard like we wish to have had instead a handsome/pretty, sexy, appealing partner, and so forth. We are seeking for a perfect partner but do not realize that there’s no such thing as perfect partner if by that you mean a sort of “all-in-the-package” guy or girl. This seems to be ironic because sometimes for a relationship to last we need to discipline ourselves

with regards to contentment. We failed to be faithful to our partner because we are not satisfied with what they are and what they can give. We seek for those things absent on them from other people. Our idealism and discontentment push the relationship to its limit and thus made it to endure for only a short time. Sometimes, even potential lover that comes our way surely would stand no chance for we demand that he or she must first fit our standard. There are those who can offer true love but may not hit our qualifications. And as long as we maintain this kind of mentality, we may never find the right person because our material mind speaks for our heart. Some easily give up a relationship during several misunderstanding and disagreements because they’re confident they can easily find a replacement. For younger people, they don’t value much of relationship because, well of course it’s not yet advisable for them to engage into such thing. But given that they did, handling the relationship is likened to a puppy love, sweet things easily passes by. They just consider a relationship as something requirement for their age or someone to spend their free hours with or someone to be the inspiration of things they do. During our youth, we are usually experimental and do not put much seriousness to any intimate relationship for we are not ready yet to commit. We changed partners from time to time, and when we reached our adulthood, we begin to understand the real meaning of intimate relationship. So we decide to settle down finally with that special someone. Normally matured people choose those younger than them because they want to feel youthful again through their young partners. Experienced as they are and matured at their age, they wanted the relationship to go their way and this brings conflict between the partner’s freedom to explore life and the desire to concentrate on raising a family. Sometimes we do not realize things early enough and it just start to unravel during our maturing years when we are old enough to be liked by anyone. Even when we are already fixed in mind with regards to making a relationship last, you can not expect it to be the same thought of your young partner. They too are explorative just as you were before, and if you wish to have the relationship with them, there will be conflict of interests. Inasmuch as we want to have an ideal and lasting relationship, it is rare to realize this effort. Even young lovers do not seem to prolong a relationship because their minds are still unstable and put less regard to the issue of true feelings and emotions. As long as they are both in mutual understanding, they can go on with that. Why is it so hard to find true love? Actually true love is possible. Only that it requires effort and perseverance to make it a reality. In this present generation where mentality is influenced by materialism, true love is overshadowed by temporary affections. To some extent, we mistake love for companionship, so is true love for an ideal love. We wished to be secured in one’s presence, and this kind of inclination would force us to believe that being with special someone for a long time and enjoying his or her presence would instantly mean love more than mere companionship, although it might be possible at some point ‘coz we can attest to lovers who started out as friends. Yes, it might be love in the first place but true love is meant to last for a lifetime. Time itself is not sufficient to say it is true love. We heard of couples who live together for a long time and suddenly broke from the relationship. Reasons may differ from one case to another. But one thing is certain: even though we feel that we have finally found the right person, we can’t be so sure if we and our partners will be strong to withstand the test of time. Maybe lovers will get into temptation and give in, or else discover through time their worst side, or perhaps just fades with their feelings for each other, and for whatever reason, relationship usually dies out when lovers exhaust their capacity to sustain it. So in the final analysis, we might say that true love exists, depending only on how you make of it.

POLICE BRUTALITY VS. NECESSARY FORCE A VIEW FROM THE OTHER SIDE By: Peter J. Pranzo, Ret. Lt., NYPD Today, many police departments across America find themselves amidst turmoil with widespread allegations of police brutality. These accusations are simply an ongoing process of a segment of our modern day society that never seems to be satisfied. Left and right wingers alike will either be for total strict law enforcement up until death penalties, or vow for a slap on the wrist with rehabilitation for armed robbers, murderers, and rapists. The melee falls nothing short of political games, swinging forward and backward, twisting and bending towards the most favorable public opinion. It might hinge on upcoming elections or appointments, reflecting the mood of the majority of voters. The configuration of a city administration can change overnight by one mistake, by one police officer, involved in a single incident. A hero one day would merely be sacrificed the next, if circumstances are of a nature as to alleviate an angry neighborhood, misled by a quick selling media. Only on TV does law enforcement look so easy. In real life situations, criminals do not wish to be arrested. They do not put their hands out, waiting to be handcuffed. These felons run, fight, and kill, just to avoid apprehension. Some instigate, telling the police officer to kill them, exclaiming they'll never give up! Most have nothing to lose. Prison is not new to them, while crime being a way of life. Lately, video cameras and lawsuits have added a new dimension. A cop never knows what type of criminal he's dealing with. They could be first time offenders, first time being caught, or first hand killers. Many have rap sheets that are taller than themselves. Police officers must apprehend these criminals to protect the public. No one is there to see what a challenge this is. No one knows the strength necessary to overtake someone who has been caught disobeying the law and resisting arrest. Everyone feels a gun in the holster should be enough to keep perpetrators at bay. Police officers today know how untrue this statement is. Each criminal is an individual, as is each person. What is necessary force for one to be apprehended certainly may not be enough for the next. Who is the judge of this? Who has the right to say what "should" have transpired during an arrest? That decision is left up to the cop, and now, after his or her job is done, they may be told, "It could have been done differently." How does this affect their attitude on their next tour of duty? Should they use different methods, debug their mind of all they've been taught, leave their lives hanging on the line with a person who may have nothing to lose by killing them while they try to persuade him to come calmly? These are things the public cannot relate to. At times, the police frequently arrest persons who have been injured in fights or as the result of accidents. Prisoners are sometimes injured in jail as a result of fights with other prisoners or falls due to intoxication, fainting, or epileptic attacks. Also true, police often use physical force to subdue a person in order to effect an arrest, and injuries may result. The public is inclined to look upon the injury and illness of prisoners with suspicion and believe it is evidence of police brutality. Because of this attitude, today, it is doubly important that the police give careful attention to injured or ill prisoners and detain no one in jail who is in critical condition. Police officers are not trained to judge the extent of an injury or seriousness of an illness; thus they must be sure that the prisoner is examined by a physician. The commanding officer and other superiors should be informed when injured and ill prisoners are brought to police precincts, courts, booking centers, or headquarters. Necessary steps should be taken to safeguard the life and health of such prisoners. They should be sent to a hospital or examined by a physician, and should not be held in jail except on the written consent of the physician. A suitable injured-prisoner report should be filed, protecting the prisoner as well as the police by

recording the physician's approval of the prisoner's incarceration, showing an examination was made and necessary treatment given. Who judges police incidents whereby an allegation of police brutality has been put forth? Civilian complaint review boards have failed to satisfy police departments as well as the public. Police officers may have to make life or death decision in a matter of seconds. To use deadly physical force or not? To hit or not? To use a baton, taser, or other non-lethal weapons or not? No matter what his or her decision, they stand to be criticized, penalized, fired, or even jailed by people who have days or months to decide if a cop overreacted or used a little too much force, possibly to save his or her own life. While others are trying to analyze the situation, public sympathy is leaning towards the criminal, due to press releases and one-sided news coverage, while malice spills towards the cop who only did his job. Let these arbitrators or members of their families one day be mugged, robbed, raped, assaulted for their wallet, or held at gunpoint. Then and only then will they be calling for an officer to apprehend their attacker with whatever means possible, "within the law!" Only then will they begin to understand, while now taking a view from the other side. Many administrations have found themselves between a rock and a hard place, walking a fine line between aggressive patrol and police brutality via abuse of authority. Sweeps for quality of life offenses and the stopping and questioning and subsequent searching of suspicious persons on the streets of volatile, high- crime neighborhoods, are a necessary part of aggressive patrol and should not be sacrificed to alleviate tensions derived from a single incident. The old passive patrol technique, the wait and see attitude, is and always has been a failure. Although no one can condone beating cuffed prisoners, in the past these felons have somehow managed to kill cops. Yogi put it best; "It ain't over till it's over!" Handcuffed prisoners can still resist arrest and cause death or serious injury to police officers or innocent bystanders. Most cops out there know the truth. There are doers and there are watchers. The doer, the aggressive cop, usually winds up the hero, the most decorated, the promoted one. It's too bad that he or she is also the one that usually winds up holding the bag. The old police proverb still prevails; "A police officer would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6." Today, when a cop falters, he or she stands alone, stripped of all dignity and respect. But, when that heroic deed is accomplished, all will applaud and stand behind them while basking in their glory. The message is loud and clear; be careful out there, use common sense, be professional, but, do your job.

Spanking Children Should parents spank children for misbehaving? By Amy Finley Is spanking children an acceptable form of discipline? Read the pros and cons of using this parenting tactic before you make your decision. Ads by Google Homeschool Your Way Homeschool curriculum and materials Visit our site, get started today! Modern Controversy over Corporeal Punishment In recent decades, experts in a variety of fields have turned a critical eye toward the use of spanking as punishment. As more information is garnered about a child's psychological and emotional development, the use of physical punishment to train a child has come under attack

with increasing frequency. Spanking is one of the biggest sources of debate when it comes to the politics of parenting. There is much controversy over whether or not spanking a child is acceptable as discipline, with some parents standing by this method, and others staunchly advocating against its practice. Both California and Massachusetts have attempted without success to pass bills that would ban spanking as a form of discipline and make it illegal for parents to inflict physical punishment on their children. Paddlings in schools are still legal in 23 states. Arguments against Spanking Children Many family advocacy groups, psychologists, and other health professionals consider spanking to be inappropriate and recommend against its use. Arguments against spanking as a form of punishment include: Spanking is not respectful of the child. Spanking can be humiliating and harm the child emotionally and mental. It teaches children that violence is acceptable and may increase violent tendencies, aggressions, and misbehaviors in children. Use of spanking can be contradictory and confusing for a child - a spanking as a punishment for a child who was hitting, for example. Arguments that spanking is a form of child abuse. Spanking can cause severe rifts in the parent-child relationship and cause long-term emotional effects in the child. Spanking on bare buttocks borders on or can be considered sexual abuse. Spanking children does not teach an alternative method of behavior to prevent the wrongdoing from occurring again - in other words, it doesn't keep the child from making the same mistake twice. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, in fact, spanking is considered the least effective disciplinary method parents can use. Support for Spanking Proponents of using spanking as a form of discipline argue that for some wrongdoings, children experience natural consequences -- and when they don't experience consequences, a parent should spank as a means to impart a negative association with the wrong behavior. Proponents also say that spanking allows a parent to immediately halt a dangerous behavior, such as a child running into the street. Many advocates of physical discipline believe it is acceptable as a traditional form of discipline, and/or that spanking is a necessary means of communicating a message about negative behavior to young children who may not understand verbal explanations. Some of the strongest supports of spanking are fundamentalist religious groups. Pro-spanking Christians (as well as others) mistakenly adhere to the old adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." It's important to note, however, that Biblical passages referring to the "rod" and child discipline do not necessarily support physical punishment. There are arguments that the rod is used figuratively as a metaphor for guidance rather than an object used to inflict physical pain. Non-Abusive Spanking Spanking children excessively when a parent is angry over minor and many other scenarios can be considered abusive. If a parent chooses to spank as a form of discipline, he or she may want to consider the following tips to avoid disciplining in an abusive manner. Never spank a child in anger. Never spank a child in front of others or with the intention of humiliating or embarrassing that child.

Avoid multiple spankings. Reserve the punishment for serious offenses. Spanking is typically considered inappropriate for infants and children older than age 5 - babies cannot understand and older than five the child typically experiences humiliation. Make sure the child understands exactly what wrong behavior s/he is receiving the spanking for. Discuss the issue calmly and discuss ways the behavior can be corrected in the future. Alternatives Methods of Discipline Parents may resort to spanking children because they were disciplined in that manner, they don't know any other method, or out of frustration or anger. There are, however, many ways to effectively discipline without physical punishment. Alternatives to spanking include: Time out or temporary isolation Ignoring the behavior when appropriate (i.e. whining) Loss of privileges Doing extra chores Facing natural consequences or making retribution for actions Verbal reprimand Behavior Checklists Although it's important to discipline children for doing wrong, it's also extremely important to use positive reinforcement. When you catch your children making the right choices, praise and encourage them. Make a habit to spend quality time with your child and encourage him or her in the things s/he is doing well. Enforcing the positive behaviors a child exhibits is often the best way to reduce negative behaviors before they occur.