Ben Lewis - Round Table reporter

The NTSB (National Traffic and Safety Board) are recommending a ban on all cell phone use while in the car, which is an overzealous response that should not include the likes of Bluetooth and other hands free devices.

Texting and talking on the phone, while driving, should be banned because it distracts the driver from the road, and slows down reaction time. As for Bluetooth and other hands free devices, it doesn’t distract the driver anymore then switching a radio station would.

Maryland, along with other states, have banned texting but only “Three states–Connecticut, New Jersey and New York–plus the District of Columbia implemented total bans on driving while using a phone, threatening violators with fines or jail time. Brazil, Germany, Great Britain and Japan, for example, all have nationwide bans on cell phone driving,” according to research done by Issues and Controversies.

Even though some states are starting to ban phones completely, people are still doing it. “According to a September 21, 2010 report, 250,000 American motorists are texting and driving, at any given moment,” reports the PBS NewsHour.

If the U.S. really wants to stop cell phone use then they must follow suit of countries like Brazil, Germany, Great Britain and Japan, and ban cell phone use nationwide. Having higher consequences for breaking these laws such as a large fine or even jail time can result in less cell phone use in the car.

The main reason texting and or talking on the road is so dangerous is because it slows reaction time and distracts the driver from the road. Many accidents occur from distracted drivers, and many people lose their lives each year, to just send one more text.

One of the main reasons the NTSB proposed the ban was after a horrific crash on “Aug. 5, 2010, in Gray Summit, Mo., in which the driver of a pickup truck sent 11 text messages in the 11 minutes prior to the accident that killed him and injured a number of passengers on two school buses,” according to an article done by eWeek.

If someone really needs to send a text or call someone simply pull over to the side of the road and do it. Or use hands free devices such as Bluetooth and Siri.
People are starting to research and develop ways to disable the smart phone while in the car. “The most straightforward way to ensure that the person driving is not using their cell phone is to disable the smart phone while the car is moving,” according to eWeek.

No software has been fully developed yet, but the system would start once the phone detects it’s over a certain speed “The software runs in the background of a smart phone and comes to life when it detects that the device is moving faster than a preset velocity, typically five mph,” according to eWeek.

This system could prove to eliminate the whole problem, but no software has been developed yet and much research still has to be done before it is actually put into use.

In the end, texting and talking on the phone could get you seriously injured or killed. So remember, to stay alive don’t text and drive.

As of October 2010, there were over 3,000 inmates onAmerica’s death row. While most states, as well as most Americans, support capital  punishment, the policy’s shortcomings severely outweigh its merits.

An institution with such broad disparities in its application, one-tenth of its intended victims’ eventual exoneration, and the financially preferable alternative of lifelong incarceration has no place in a modern, civilized society. Aside from providing temporary comfort to grieving families, the majority of the death penalty’s beneficial aspects are negligible at best, and fallacious at worst.

The first and most obvious flaw of the death penalty lies in is its irreversibility and finality. While time lost serving a prison sentence cannot be regained, the remainder of the sentence need not be served once an inmate’s innocence has been proven.

Execution, on the other hand, leaves no room for error on the part of the justice system. Though most rulings will, undoubtedly, be correct, the chance of an incorrect ruling is great enough to endanger innocent lives. Misleading evidence, falsified testimonies, or even a particularly ineffective defense attorney could mean the difference between life and death for a defendant.

Perhaps even worse than the loss of life is the defacement of a blameless person’s legacy, as was the case for Johnny Garrett: a 17-year-old wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a nun, Sister Tadea Benz. Garrett may have been proved innocent thanks to the modern application of DNA typing, but not before the death and embarrassment of Garrett and his entire family.

While the inclusion of DNA evidence was instrumental in the posthumous exoneration of others like Garrett, it cannot be used as a cure-all for the problems in the legal system.

Obviously, DNA testing can only be used when DNA can still be found at the crime scene: a requirement often unable to be fulfilled. It is also a costly expense whenever it can be used. Using DNA typing may decrease the chance of error, but it is neither a definitive nor affordable solution to the discrepancies so prevalent in the allocation of capital punishment.

In addition to factual misrepresentations, verdicts are also subject to the preconceived notions and personal biases of the jurors. The distribution of the death penalty among races, for example, is skewed heavily towards blacks. Over 40 percent of death row inmates are African-American, yet only 13 percent of American citizens are African Americans.

A 2003 study done by theUniversity ofMaryland found the death penalty to have been more commonly sought in cases involving both a white victim and a black offender.

Though blacks are statistically more likely to commit murders than whites, this data shows the choice of punishment for murder to have been consistently more severe when used against African-Americans than with whites.

The Supreme Court even acknowledged the disproportionate use of the death penalty in McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), yet refused to declare it “cruel or unusual” under the Eighth Amendment because the court believed inconsistencies to be inevitable in the justice system.

This would only be acceptable if the statistics presented could be seen as incidental; they were not. The study, published by David C. Baldus of theUniversityofIowa, found that those accused of murdering whites were 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than those who had killed blacks. To call such incongruity “inconclusive” or “incidental” is foolish.

Baldus’s study may have been conducted over 20 years ago, but the racist sentiments observed in it can still be found in modernAmerica. Duane Buck, a black man previously scheduled for lethal injection in September 2011, recently had his execution date reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

This is in spite of a psychologist Walter Quijano’s allegation that Buck’s race “increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons” during the hearing. Whether or not this statement affected the jury’s decision cannot be known, but the judge’s permittance of such vague and unfounded testimony suggests that he found Quijano’s statement to be within the bounds of reality: a dangerous mindset for the man who would eventually sentence Buck to death.

With the decline of both state and federal budgets, politicians are desperate to make cuts in any area able to afford them. While the decision as to whether or not convicted murderers deserve execution should certainly be based on justice rather than economic value, the monetary advantages of abolishing the death penalty are surprisingly concrete, and should not be ignored.

Attempting to put an accused killer on death row, for example, sends the defense into a raging fit of desperation, costing the state time and money just to get a conviction.

In combination with expensive lethal chemicals, DNA testing, and the obstructions placed by a legal system largely uninterested in actually carrying out the death penalty, the whole concept seems ineffective even when technically in place.

California, for example, has an average wait of 20 years before an inmate is executed and spends $90 thousand more per year on those sentenced to death than those who are not. Even the most ardent proponents of the death penalty must admit these to be inexcusable wastes of taxpayer dollars.

The strongest case for the death penalty is its alleged role as a deterrent of crime; however, almost every study available on the subject suggests the contrary. NorthwesternUniversitySchoolof Law’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology showed that 88 percent of the criminologists surveyed did not find the death penalty to be a significant deterrent of homicide.

Statistics collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that, as of September 2000, 10 out of 12 states without capital punishment had homicide rates lower than the national average.

Life in prison is no less a deterrent of crime than execution, as it should be equally as threatening, when taking into account the poor state of many U.S. prisons. One who would prefer the company of other murderers, thieves, and rapists in squalid, unsanitary conditions to death is not in full comprehension of how long a life-sentence is.

Another illogical argument for the death penalty is the idea that it provides closure for the victim’s family. While this is likely true in many cases, the murderer, regardless of how evil he or she may be, cannot be sacrificed for the temporary satisfaction of a family. The accused is equally as likely to have a family as the victim, causing the mere relocation of the misery rather than the destruction of it.

The death penalty has clearly outlived its use in American society. It is morally, logically, and even economically inferior when compared to a lifelong sentence. Allowing capital punishment to remain in place simultaneously allows for the interference of human emotions and errors in the legal process, two possibilities which cannot be permitted when discussing the potential execution of a fellow human being.

The walls are splattered with blood and the carpet is soaked scarlet. A cold, dead body lies on the floor, so mangled it is barley recognizable. The murderer replays the vicious attack in his twisted mind: her life in his hands, the screaming, the scratching, the futile pleading…he loved every second of it and craves the power once again. However, he cannot evade his ultimate fate and is quickly apprehended by police forces. He is tried and convicted of murder and rape. He is discharged after 10 years due to good behavior, despite receiving a 25-year sentence. He smiles with excitement as he is released onto the streets, already envisioning his next kill.

There have been approximately 16,000 homicides each year in the United States over the past decade, yet only 1,234 inmates have been subjected to the death penalty since 1977. This goes to show that the system has become too lenient with inmates in regard to their sentences.

Some states, such asMichigan and West Virginia, have completely abolished the death penalty, clearly overlooking the resulting implication: taxpayers’ hard-earned money is paying for the food, clothes, education and jobs of murderers and rapists in prison.

It costs $3,794,837.69 per year to support inmates in jail, an average of $41,865.63 per inmate. If all of the criminals on death row were executed on time, it would save the state approximately $1.88 million per year, money that could be spent on more beneficial things, such as providing schools with new books.

Not only should the death penalty be reintroduced to the states in which it was repealed, but it should be implemented more often.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

Some people believe that the death penalty allows criminals to take the easy way out. If inmates were locked up for the rest of their lives, then they would be forced to reflect on their crimes and would presumably become laden with the burden of their guilt, a punishment far worse than the death penalty. Yet prison is not always as terrible people think it is.

The inmates who behave receive special rewards such as a television in their room, arts and crafts, getting their hair stylized, gym access, going outside and an overall free living consisting of food, drinks and snacks.

The purpose of being incarcerated is the punishment of not having access to these amenities. If criminals were to have access to all of those perks, why not just place them under house arrest?

Inmates also have the opportunity to obtain a free college education. It hardly seems fair that murderers and rapists should get educated for free while hard-working, law-abiding citizens do not.

The idea that these inmates will have time to “think” and “reflect” on their actions is unrealistic; how could they have time to do that when they are busy socializing with other inmates? The level of interaction allowed at prisons and jails has gone too far.

Another concern about the death penalty is the question of who should receive it. It’s simple, really; all murderers should receive the death penalty. Rapists who are found guilty of having committed one or more rape (repeat offenders) should also receive it.

Perhaps one of the biggest controversies surrounding the death penalty involves the possibility that a person is wrongly convicted, but with today’s DNA technology the chances of that occurring are extremely slim. If there was enough evidence to convict a person, then that person should have to pay the punishment.

The people who commit these vile crimes took the lives of someone’s daughter or mother or father…someone who was very important to someone else. Who are they to take an innocent life?

Which raises the question: Who is the court to decide that the murderer’s life should be taken away? Once again, the answer is not complicated; if someone takes a life, they should have to pay with their own.

The person who was murdered did not know what was happening; it obviously wasn’t a choice. The murderer knew exactly what he or she was doing and should have to suffer the consequences.

Some say that murder, including “state murder,” is never humane, but the way in which the murderer receives the death penalty is usually far more humane than the way in which the victim’s life was taken.

The death penalty used to be carried out through an electric chair, a firing squad or gas chambers, but now inmates fall asleep as they receive a painless shot (lethal injection) that slowly stops the heart’s beating.

They are luckier than their victims. They are not getting cut up into multiple pieces, stuffed into a trash bag and tossed into the ocean.

The only people who should be exempt from the death penalty are those with previously known mental disorders that are the direct cause of the murder. Instead of the death penalty, those people should be admitted to a mental health facility for permanent care.

Imagine a future in which people don’t have to worry about checking a database to see if a rapist lives nearby and a child can walk to school without fearing their criminal neighbor.

That’s the future many dream of and it’s one that can only be achieved if the death penalty is not only reintroduced to the states in which it was repealed, but implemented more often.

It’s no surprise to find out that nearly 30 million people tan indoors in the U.S. every year; 2.3 million of them are teens.

Study after study has shown that sun bed tanning increases the risk of both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers. According to skincancer.org, one person dies of melanoma every 62 minutes, 65 percent of these cases are directly related to sun radiation.

Tanning salon owners say tanning machines are safer than outdoor tanning for two reasons: 1. they mainly use ultra-violet “A” rays, and 2. they offer more “controlled” UV exposure. However, we know now that UV “A” is a carcinogen, and studies have revealed that tanning salons frequently exceed “safe” UV limits.

The American Academy of Pediatrics wants teenagers banned from tanning salons to reduce their risk of skin cancer.

More than 30 states regulate indoor tanning by minors, with some banning children younger than 14 or requiring parental permission. Illinois and New York are among states considering bills barring anyone under 18 from indoor tanning.

Darker skin does offer greater protection than light skin against sunburn and skin cancer. However, that applies only to people with naturally darker skin. Tanning, like sunburns, attacks the skin’s DNA, producing genetic defects that may cause skin cancer.

Tanning bed industries is a five billion gross profit business per year, targeting high school and college students, as well as women under the age of 35.

According to The Apache Pow Wow, the number of people using tanning beds has actually surpassed the number of people who smoke cigarettes and many tanning bed users are college students. However, by trying to keep students out of tanning salons and raising awareness about the dangers of indoor tanning is the only way to keep your skin safe.

Why should these adults, teens or younger adolescence fall to the “sun-kissed, summer glow” while risking the possibility of cancer in their future?

The facts bear out: There is no such thing as a safe tan.  However, there are safe alternatives in sunless tanners, bronzers, and self-tan creams. Being informed about how to protect yourself from unwanted sun exposure is the best defense against skin cancer and skin aging.

Common myths for Tanning:

1. “Skin cancer is easily curable.” Not necessarily. Melanoma can be fatal if not detected early. Pre-cancerous or cancerous cells must be removed, usually by cutting out the affected tissue, which can leave scars. If surgery isn’t an option, laser therapy, radiation, or even chemotherapy may be used.
2. “Your body needs sun to stay healthy.” Sunlight is necessary for your body to synthesize Vitamin D, but it only takes 5-15 minutes of sun, two to three times a week.
3. “Moderate tanning is okay.” Cancer is a risk even if you only spend a little bit of time bronzing. Just one sunburn can have long-lasting, damaging effects.
4. “Tanning beds are safer than the sun.” Tanning beds usually emit mostly UVA rays that are less likely to cause sunburns. However, those UVA rays are believed to cause deeper skin damage, including premature aging and possibly melanoma – not to mention an estimated 700 emergency room visits per year are related to tanning beds use.

Take care of your skin. Be cautious of the amount of tanning you do and realize the harmful effects that can impact your body.

One one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand, four… Every 20 seconds in America there is an abortion.

Three million women per year use no contraception or birth control, which accounts for 47 percent of unplanned pregnancies, according to americanpregnancy.org.

On Feb. 18 the U.S. House of Representatives voted to bar Planned Parenthood health centers from all federal funding for birth control, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and other lifesaving care.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate. Planned Parenthood also works with partner organizations worldwide to improve the sexual health and well-being of individuals and families everywhere.

Five million women, men and adolescents adhere to Planned Parenthood’s healthcare, information, and education each year.

If Planned Parenthood can take 90 percent of its clients and help those with preventive, primary care to prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical and other cancers, then why bar federal funding?

Isn’t the goal to reduce unplanned pregnancies overall?

Republicans argued that the amendment was necessary to prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions—even though, under Title X, the organization is already prohibited from using federal funds for such purposes.

How can the republicans say that the funding goes towards abortions when the primary care of Planned Parenthood is to emphasize the meaning of “planned parenthood?” 

The amendment, which was introduced by republican representative Mike Pence of Indiana, passed 240 to 185, mostly along party lines. The title still faces a vote in the Senate.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told Mother Jones magazine that she believes they can win enough votes in the Senate to restore Title X funding. “We’ve taken this vote before,” Richards said.

Without access to basic health care Planned Parenthood provides, more women will die, fewer children will receive pre- and post-natal care. There will be more unwanted pregnancies and, ironically, more abortions.

The world of political punditry is one void of any middle ground or even a valid purpose. Whether it’s Ed Schultz claiming that he’d cheat in an election to keep Scott Brown out of office or Sean Hannity saying that Democrats deserve to be tortured and killed in Guantanamo, the worthlessness of these opinion programs has become increasingly evident due to the most prominent news networks’ reliance on them for ratings. The purpose that journalism used to serve has been overshadowed by the growing popularity of shows based almost entirely on feelings rather than facts.

While the stars of shows like Countdown and Hannity should (and would likely claim to) base their broadcasts around their own opinions, they choose to adhere strictly to their respective ideologies by repeating the accepted views of their target audience and blatantly insulting anyone who disagrees.

Most monologues don’t even concern political issues, but, rather, politicians or rival commentators. When someone’s argument consists of labeling an opponent as a “pinhead” or “the worst person in the world” each week, the lack of any substance in their position becomes apparent. A legitimate point being made by a pundit is about as likely as an original song being written by Nickelback.

The result is a completely polarized body of voters who are only used to hearing their side of an issue. Understanding and compromise become foreign concepts when the slightest disagreement is met with unmitigated contempt from both sides. A people’s unwillingness to cooperate with or even listen to their opposition halts any progress that might otherwise be made toward a truly civilized democracy. When both halves of the country’s opinions differ so vastly, then neither party should be expected to get everything it wants.

The hosts’ inability to make relevant political arguments, however, is not entirely their fault. If they were never hired by a network, then obviously they wouldn’t need to be concerned with maintaining their viewership, therefore no longer having to resort to puerile name calling. If a shoe-salesman is hired as an anesthesiologist, it’s not his fault when a patient regains consciousness in the middle of his appendectomy; it’s his employer’s.

Pundits are not chosen based on their political acumen, but on whether they have interesting and magnetic personalities. Facts do not draw in viewers, but fiery (albeit empty) speeches do. This is why people like Keith Olbermann, a former football announcer, would be chosen over those with political backgrounds.

In order for these commentators to serve a useful purpose, they need to try to balance the use of facts with meaningless rhetoric. This equilibrium, however, may be difficult to find. Thirty minutes of a man screaming about how insane his opponents are may be entertaining, but serves no intellectual purpose. Plainly stating statistics and studies, on the other hand, would drive the show to cancellation.

If political commentators would choose to present their actual views in a respectful and intelligent manner, then society would benefit from a more informed constituency. The complete abolishment of these types of shows is an unrealistic goal, however, as doing so would completely bankrupt most news networks. There is also the chance that a pundit may actually contribute positively to society. After all, some people think “Rockstar” is a good song.

As the new semester arrived, both students and teachers got energized for new classes and new people. For some students, the end of this past semester meant excitement for the easier classes to begin. Others, however, dread the more difficult courses to come. But they all have one thing in common, and that is ending friendships and beginning new ones.

The end means a few things to the entire school body: finals, parties, and goodbyes to class friends. The problem with changing classes is that people who connected in their class or classes together can easily lose touch just because of new schedules.

A students’ social life in classes plays such a huge role nowadays. Sure, there are bonds outside of the Middletown High School building, but new friendships can easily stem from classes and make relationships stronger.

If in the first semester, for example, someone becomes close with their lab partner, but not close enough to keep in touch outside of school. That friend can easily become someone you only say hi to in the hallways and then that’s the end, whereas a few weeks ago, you talked everyday.

Proximity in the classroom means a lot too, especially when the seating chart is stationary during the whole semester. Although teachers constantly reprimand the noise level of the class, talking to whoever is around is how most students make it through the day.

If there is no one around who we are comfortable with, it becomes harder to make connections, work in groups, and have self-confidence knowing none of our friends are around. However, being near friends makes that class more enjoyable, while still learning.

So much depends on classes and where one sits in his or her classes. Friendship is one of the most important aspects of any high school and it can be influenced so much by who you meet in your classes.

It’s safe to say that some American citizens are getting “fed up” with the amount of increasing illegal immigrants that cross the border between Mexico and the United States. It’s estimated that 10 to 12 million illegal aliens are currently living inside the U.S. today.

These illegal immigrants create more damage to our economy then they do productivity. They contribute to an excess amount of crime and violence as well as adding to the nations still rising 13 trillion dollar debt.

According to an immigration statistics website, experts have found that nearly one third of all federal prisons are illegal immigrants, costing tax payers over 1.6 billion dollars annually.

Not only do these illegal immigrants threaten the safety of American citizens, they also cost them billions of dollars each year. Some people believe that the people crossing the border are innocent, and simply only looking for a better life, but this is not always the case.

According to the John W. Pope Civitas Institute, in 2005 as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 million kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States via the Mexican border.

Even “small town” areas are worried about the increasing crime inside their counties. One North Carolina Sherriff estimates that 80 to 85 percent of the drug trade in his county is because of the work of illegal Hispanics in the area.

To make matters worse, these aliens also play a large role in the amount of gang violence erupting in the United States. Nationally, Hispanics count for 49 percent of all gang membership.

These Mexican gangs, such as MS-13 and Surenos-13 are part of the horrific activities of human trafficking and human smuggling. According to Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute, “Mexico is the number one source for young female sex slaves in North America.”

Something needs to be done about this ongoing issue. Tighter laws should be enforced, similar to the one made in Arizona. Or obtaining citizenship should be made easier so that illegal immigrants can begin to pay taxes like the rest of American citizens.

I don’t believe in discriminating against a race for no particular reason. I understand that not all illegal immigrants are guilty of crime and violence, but illegal immigrants are adding unnecessary amounts of money to our national deficit each day, and potentially threatening the safety of U.S. citizens.

For many high school teenagers having a job means the allowance to have more freedom and a higher level of maturity.

Teenagers are set apart among adults because unlike them they go to school full time, giving them the option to either get a job or not. The major appeal for a job is money. Although, some may be spent on movies, dinner, shopping, and other weekend activities. Many students rely on that money to pay for an even more important expense – college.

College becomes the reason for many teens to start working for their own sake. As years go on, college rates grow pricier and unless a student is guaranteed a scholarship, he or she may become responsible in whole or in part of their college tuition.

For a number of Middletown High School students, their well-off lifestyle can be easily taken for granted. Many don’t have to worry about budgets and payments while others work to keep their families on their feet.

Although some teens are expected to find a job, others simply find a job because they know how important it is to get a taste of the real world that awaits them after college.  

“I would really want a job, because I need money for college, but I don’t have a car or my license to get around. That’s probably why businesses make their age requirement 16 or older”, said MHS junior Lauren Holda. Holda said she would want to work at Weis, since it’s so close to her house.

A contributing factor in teens without jobs is the job search itself. Some businesses that have “Help Wanted” signs on their doors hint for a new employee, but do not promise the job will be given to just anyone. That’s where the interview process comes in.

These means in order to win over the boss create stress and anxiety. The thought of pleasing management with qualification and personality make getting the job even harder. “Interviewing scares me. I’d rather just get the job on the spot like everyone else would”, said MHS senior Shawn Byrne.

Finding a business in need for employees is tough enough, but waiting for the call that decides between getting the job or not might be the toughest part.

‘Tis the season for charities and fundraisers to ask you to give, but with requests coming from all directions, how do you know that your donations go where they say it will?

Whether you’re out shopping, browsing the internet, or even at home, you’re likely to come across someone asking you to donate. But, a little digging on your part could help you know exactly where your money is going.

If a person asks you to donate, and they claim the money will go to a particular group or a church, simply call them. If it is a larger organization, you can actually look up their financial reports and registration with the state by going online.

Charities that solicit must be registered at the state, so the State Secretary will have all necessary information.

Maryland is home to 26,000 nonprofit organizations that employ nearly 240,000 people, representing 9.4 percent of the state’s workforce and 8.3 percent of its payroll.

According to thebostonchannel.com, in 2009, telemarketers kept 57 percent of your donations and charities kept 43 percent, on average. For example, All-Pro Productions raised 440, 594 dollars in 2009 and actually gave 98,765 dollars to a charity.

Here are some “Donation Do’s” to help you:

DO- Get a receipt for your donation.

DO-Check the organization out before you give.

DO-Review the organizations Web site for a breakdown of where it allocates its donations.

It’s important that charitable donors are able to have confidence in nonprofit organizations and charities.