Khalid Doubi
EAP1
09/10/06

Amish shooter
Summary:
According to CNN News, the attack that happened in Pennsylvania was by Charles Carl Roberts, who died. He is 32 years old: he took his children to the bus stop, then he went to the school; he was planning to commit this attack because there was not any kind of mistake in the operation and also that he got it was so obvious that he was planning to do the attack for at least two to three weeks, according to the state police Col. Jeffrey Miller. He said that it was hard to the troops to get in to the school because the attacker put covers into the door; that’s why they get from the window. Police had a hard time to identifying the Amish victims in the hospital. Workers said that they did not know what is coming to his mind but they felt that he was under pressure in the last week.
Reaction:
If we take a look at the history, we can see that this kind of attack was not the first time that happened; actually there was a shooting in Chicago in 1999. A similar thing happened and if we take a look to what the police state said, he said that the Campus of school can be secure but things like this happened. No one thinks that this person who has a family can commit this in a community. What happened can stop children from studying or going to school; they might feel afraid, then in this way there will be no education. This man has something crazy going on his mind that’s why he did it. Some people who do crimes and kill themselves or get killed by police do it because they are getting bored from their routine life and they want to end their life but they want the history to talk about them and say that he is an attacker. The police must secure the school area by putting more cameras and security police inside the building and outside the building. In this way government can control it more and parents can feel safety when they send their children to school.

AE2

abdulhadi

New views on video

The researches are different between violence in stories and violence through television. The children effect by the violence on television. Their different between watch the violence and read about it for several things. First, when you read about the violence your creating what happened but when you watch it they let you see what they want you to see. Second, not all children can read violence store. And when you read you can control the pacing but when you watch you cannot control it. In conclusion, they believe that there is different between reading violence and viewing violence on the television. In my opinion I agree with them that watching violence TV it has a bad influence on children.
First, children who watch TV are able to see violence movies. So, they spent more time watching TV. Most of movie have heroines who are usually criminals children might copy them. In addition these days there are a lot of violence movies showing on TV. So, it will affect on children.
Finally, some programs show a lot of violence, for example, some reality TV and some sport. They show fighting and violent in their program children more likely to see these programs.
In conclusion, watching violence on TV effect on children more than reading. violent movies and violent program are too much on TV. I hope children don't see the stories from TV.

AE2

abdulhadi

New views on video

The researches are different between violence in stories and violence through television. The children effect by the violence on television. Their different between watch the violence and read about it for several things. First, when you read about the violence your creating what happened but when you watch it they let you see what they want you to see. Second, not all children can read violence store. And when you read you can control the pacing but when you watch you cannot control it. In conclusion, they believe that there is different between reading violence and viewing violence on the television. In my opinion I agree with them that watching violence TV it has a bad influence on children.
First, children who watch TV are able to see violence movies. So, they spent more time watching TV. Most of movie have heroines who are usually criminals children might copy them. In addition these days there are a lot of violence movies showing on TV. So, it will affect on children.
Finally, some programs show a lot of violence, for example, some reality TV and some sport. They show fighting and violent in their program children more likely to see these programs.
In conclusion, watching violence on TV effect on children more than reading. violent movies and violent program are too much on TV. I hope children don't see the stories from TV.

The article, “Learning English behind bars,” states about the English education of prisoners who are arrested in the UIJEONGBU PRISON, Gyeonggi Province. There are 30 students who were selected by the stiff competition and temporarily transferred from prisons across the country. And they are enrolled in a one-year intensive course in English and they have 7 hours of classes in English every day. The prison official in charge of the English course and Jeni Smith who teach them say that they study very hard, although they are criminals. The one of the criminal who are joining the project said that the most important meaning for him is the first time when he has achieved something by himself, moreover the process of learning English has helped him change from within. Lastly, he said, he wants to help people like him by teaching them what he have learned in the prison after when he goes out of the prison.

I agree the project to teach people who committed a crime not only in the normal society, but also in the prison.
Fist, it can be a good chance that gives hope and challenge to prisoner for life. If you think about them who are in the prison like that "they are absolutely end", "they will no more develop", or "they have no right to learn because they committed a crime", you are absolutely wrong. So to speak, that is certainly wrong. Nowadays too many people learn English as a step to go abroad. In other worlds, recently, English is essential element to people as a stool to globalize. That's all that English is a factor to be accepted not only to the normal people, but also to criminal in the prison. Is that right to take their chance of the education because they are criminals? That's wrong. Needless to say, to perpetrate a crime is wrong, but not to allow English education is unfair. So, to teach criminals in prison can be not only the footstep to go for globalization, but also the good chance of education.
Second, such a good chance of education makes them possible to enjoy their life after they walks out of prison. According to this article, many prisoner take a chance to learn English by the written test. And they strain to take part in. Sometimes, special experiences make them more hardly study. Such a positive motive makes a result even better. Although they are prisoner now, the chance of education like this and their effort to study hard is helpful to make them new men. This is very hopeful situation. The meaning of reconstructing or recreating a life in their post-prison life is that they can enjoy new and better life. As you know, English is very important thing in modern society. So, we have to throw out the thinking that they can't learn because they are criminal. Perhaps someone assert that they have to be corrected about morality or personality first. Of course, there's some truth in what they say. However, we have no right to take a their opportunity to learn, although they committed crime. They are also human, and members of society. if we can make them new men by like this English teaching program, that means that we get a positive result we want.
In conclusion, if we do like that we said advanced, such things will give us assistance to go forward to more positive and lighter way for making our life better. Therefore, the English educating project is not only chance to give criminal hopes and challenges, but also the chance that we can contact them, having such a globalized open-mind. Moreover we can help them to enjoy their new life. So such program have to be encouraged, because that have too many advantages. If we just run away from this problem with having narrow vision, we couldn't take a such result we said before and the situation is worse and worse. By such reasons, these have very important meaning.

by jin-young(JIN)

nbee newstalk

The article "underage and club" is very intersting it talks about how the actress Lindsay Lohan get to the club and every body knows that she is underage.Also, in the article the outer said that we have to solve the issue of underage going to club.But the celebrties can go anywhere they want even if they are underage.
According lot of people go in to the club with fake ID that's mean if they 18 they will go to get fake ID then they will go to the club get drunk.




In my opinin it should be ID scaner when people get to the club they scrity scan thier ID then let them go in. This is the only way to solve this problem.In my opinion it's too hard for underage to go anywhere because of there age which is furstated.

Stingray kills ‘Crocodile Hunter’

In this article “Stingray kills ‘Crocodile Hunter’” by cnn. The author talks about death one of the greatest Hunters in the world, Steve Irwin, he killed by pricking from stingray on his chest. He was taking a film there while he was diving. The author mentions that Irwin own Australian Zoo in Queensland. The author talks about his life and how it was very dangerous and he describe it as “wildlife”. In addition, the author talks about how Irwin was eager about the environment and the animals. In spite of he held his child in a hand and the other hand he feed a crocodile, people argue about his behavior but they still love him.

Steve Irwin was dashing and fervent but he wasn’t impetuous because he always knows what to do in a simple or difficult situation, but in his death which is a big tragedy, he was like a butterfly when the fire attracts it to the death. He knew it’s dangerous to come close to stingray that way. But he couldn’t stop himself from what he loved. In that moment he wasn’t think about his life or his family. He was in his own world, in his won ocean, just him and the Stingray. He didn’t think that the new friend will betray him. And end his great life.

Hassan Muslli

Washington Bureau Chief for New York Times Speaks t SIUC

The article, “Washington Bureau Chief for New York Times Speaks in SIUC,” reports Philip Taubman, chief of the New York Times Washington, D.C. bureau, delivered a speech at SIU emphasizing that to publish the anti-terrorism program last December that after 9-11 attacks, the U.S. government eavesdrops in civil phones on international calls for national security factors was the toughest, but the right decision. Later on, Taubman described after investigated for several months, although he and his co-workers directly encountered the huge pressure from government, even Bush himself since 2003, they still made it public because citizens have right to know. In the end, he accented it is not easy to make this decision. Besides the role of journalists and editors, they are people who are threatened by terrorism, too.

In this case, although the U.S. government administers the tapping program for national security, it endangers citizen’s right. That’s no way that the government can promise they always use this resolution in the right way. Furthermore, does this kind of program really bring the sense of security for people? But there should be a deadline of the press freedom, too. Nowadays, most of journalists consider themselves are the representatives of justice. Sometimes, truths are exaggerated, but people tend to believe dramatic stories, so-called truths will cause civil fear and lead to a mess of country then. I think this kind of issue will never stop.

by Bi-Chien