no fur not fair

I do not agree with Piedmont's animal policy, and here's why: If residents can have snakes longer than I am tall, why can't I have a rabbit, hamster, or cat? I do understand why this policy is in place, but I think there are other alternatives than just a strict no.
Those wanting to have pets could have an additional contract to sign along with their housing contract. Some apartment buildings require an additional deposit if you would like to have a pet. This could work too. The desposit could be refundable when the student checks out of their dorm without pet related problems. There could be size limits on furry pets. Personally, I love dogs, but having a barking dog in my dorm would diminish that love fairly quickly. Have a "three strikes" policy concerning noise and cleanliness. All of these suggestions would require a little more work from RA's and pet owners, but they would offer more freedom.
Responsibility would be the key to making this work. Students who can not be responsible enough to take their animal out, clean up after them, or keep them well behaved should not be allowed to have them. Knowledge of who these students are could only come after a trial basis. However, people we're in college. If you have trouble handling yourself, do not bring an animal into the picture.
I think we should be able to have animals along with a clear animal code of conduct.

No fur of feathers works for me

One of the big issues on Piedmont's campus is pets and the fact that we can't have any with feathers or fur. This includes animals like dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and others. Some people are ok with this and some aren't. I'm with the group that is ok with the fact that we can't have furry or feathered pets. Don't get me wrong, I love animals. However, I'm deathly allergic to cats. So I wouldn't want a roommate who has one. This would be a danger to me. I'm sure there is another student on this campus besides me who has an allergy to some other furry or feathered animal. Why would the college put our lives in danger just so someone could have a pet? Another issue with these pets is the messes they make. Especially dogs. Puppies aren't housebroken when they are born. It takes time. However, during that time, you have to clean up after them...ALOT. Urine and fecies can also stain floors and other parts of the dorm. Then you'd have to pay for the damages. If students don't want to pay for little holes in the walls from nails, I highly doubt they'll want to pay to stains. Now I realize that some people can be allergic to the pets that are allowed on campus. These include fish and reptiles. Some can also be dangerous, like big snakes. However, the risk and work is much bigger with furry or feathered animals. Other schools like UGA allow almost any kind of pet. But only is a student lives in an apartment. This way they have to pay for any damages caused by the pet. I think this way works. If you want a pet, you should be responsible for it. Still, some people have allergies to animals. So they have to intereact with people in their apartments at thier own risk.

Hairless In The Dorms

When studens walked down the halls of their dorms at Piedmont College they will never hear the bark of a dog or the purr of a cat. However they can expect to see over-grown lizards and large tanks full of fish. That is because Piedmont's current pet policy is "students may have pets with no furr or feathers." President Cleere says "allowing students to have pets such as dogs and cats would be a distraction." Can a distraction not be a good thing sometimes? Maybe having a dog or cat could be a good distraction from all the stress and pressure of college. It is always said that a dog or cat is a human's best friend. President Cleere says his biggest worry is "students will slack on cleaning up after their pets causing a huge mess and unneccessary work for housekeeping." Residence Life Coordinator Mark Maynard adds "students with pets such as dogs and cats is a big responsibility, a big responsibility that Piedmont feels students may not be able to handle with the heavy load of college courses." It is very true that pets are a huge responsibility but is learning responsibility not part of growing up and a significant part of college. In conclusion allowing students to have pets with furr and feathers would be a great addition. However in reality President Cleere says "the school's biggiest concern are those students with allergies." So as unfortunate as it is Piedmont may never see the day where the barks of dogs and purrs of cats echo the halls of dorms.

Fur No Fur it's alright with me

Some Students living on campus at piedmont have a hard time bringing their pets to school and some students have no worriers at all bringing their pets to school with them. According to The animal policy at piedmont is that the students cannot have any animals in their room that has fur. Most of the animals that the students have on campus are reptiles or fish. The rule may sound a little unfair for the student who small pets that contains fur such as hamsters, but for a couple of big university’s the rules are much different. According to the student handbooks of Cleveland State University and the University of Cincinnati animal policy says that the only animals they are allowed to have are fish. Having animals in dorms I feel should definitely be limited if you have a roommate because someone might be allergic to animals, but for those who do not have roommates should be able to have what they want. According to sixwise.com , found that 54.3 percent of Americans between the ages of 6 and 59 tested positive to one or more allergens. A positive test also means that the person has a greater risk of asthma, hay fever and eczema. The allergies that are connected to animals are not as common as others, but fury animals may trigger one of these allergies according to revolutionhealth.com animals with fur can be very irritating to someone with this kind of infection. I do feel that someone that has to pay to go to school and live in a dorm should at least be able to have a small pet if they live by themselves. Why should those students have to suffer because they want to bring a small pet, but they have to deal with their roommate’s ten foot python? Students at Piedmont are here for a degree so maybe the animal policy should just say no animals of any kind should be allowed in the place of rest. If a student really likes animals the door is open for them to have them, but maybe not the kind that they want. I feel the students should enjoy the privilege of being able to have any type of pet while their in college. For the students that have allergies should request to be moved to another room maybe with a friend, or someone that also has allergies. The rule is alright with me.

No Fur, No Feathers

According to Piedmont’s policy on pets in the dorms, students living on campus are not allowed to any pet that has fur or feathers. “I hate it. We should be allowed to have dogs and cats. We should be at least able to have bird.” says sophomore and Music major Jeff Hall. However I disagree, even though it was hard not taking my own cat, Chickadee, with me. I believe the Pet Policy has students in mind at its heart.

The policy is right for banning things with fur or feathers. Jana Myers, a freshman and Music Performance major, brings up a good point when she stated that roommates may be allergic to pets with fur. Yes, even though it is hard to leave your furry or feathered friend at home, you must think of who you will be sharing a room with.

Students at Piedmont have more freedom than some colleges’ policies with pets. For instance, at my dorms at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, we were only allowed to have fish in one gallon or less tanks. However, if a student living on campus need a service animal, that animal could live with them. The University of Georgia also follows the fish only rule, and the tank must be under 20 gallons. With Piedmont, at least you can have the choose of reptiles and amphibians also, but they generally stay in cages.

Another thing is that pets without feathers or fur are generally kept in the cage at all time. This makes them better, as all their activity stays in the cage. You don’t have to worry about taking them out as with dogs, or making sure they make the litter box as with cats. Plus, although the cage is not always fool-proof, for the most part, the pet inside cannot take off and be lost in the dorm or even outside.

Purrfect Pet Policy

Fish, snakes, and turtles are some of the most popular pets of students across our campus. That doesn’t sound like the typical list of top pets but that’s almost all that is allowed. According to Resident Director B.J. Hampton, “no hair and no fur” is the pet policy at Piedmont College. This may sound strict, but according to the LaGrange College website, fish are the only option as pets in their dorms. I feel that Piedmont College has it right with this rule by allowing students limited options that will not negatively affect the rest of the dorm.
Allergies are a part of life for many people. According to ens-newswire.com, over 50% of the U.S. population has some type of allergy. This means that one of the people sharing a wall with you is allergic to something. Allergies related to pets are less common, affecting 10% of the population according to allergyescape.com, but are no less meaningful. Why should a student paying over $20,000 per year to go the school at Piedmont be forced to live with watery eyes and constant sneezing just because their roommate likes cats?
While puppies and kittens can be cute and cuddly, they can also be messy and loud. We are at college to further our education. It might get a little difficult to study Calculus while an eight-week-old Shi Tzu is yelping next door. The odor of a pet in a confined space can get out of control as well. Just imagine walking by an open door to a room that is housing a full grown cat with a litter box. Ah! Nothing like that fresh North Georgia Air!
Piedmont has been criticized for past decision, but this one is right on. They are allowing students to express themselves as long as it doesn’t affect the rest of the student population. Enjoy it!

Assignment Due Wednesday, October 29

Find out what Piedmont's policy is on pets living in the dorms. Do you agree or disagree? As part of your blog, consider how the policy compares to other schools.

College Tuition: An Investment or A Fraud?

Every student looks forward to or remembers the days when the mail from colleges and universities around the country starts to pile up in their mailboxes. Its a time in a young person's life when they are to be rewarded for the years of hardwork that they have done put in during high school. However what about those students who are independent and pay for themselves or have parents with an income below the average income. Those students that have all the potential in the world just not all the money in the world, and that seems to be what is needed in today's world to make anything of yourself. It is not getting any better either as tuition costs continue to climb year after year. College board online says "most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $95 to $1,404 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college." With most students these days trying to work sufficent amount of hours to help pay for the tuition along with a heavy school load, so many of them have to drop out because the finicial burden of school. Reports from College board online show "the average tuition for a private four-year institution costs $23,712 a year, up 6 percent from last year, in addition the average tuition for a public four-year institution costs $6,185 a year, up 6 percent from last year." The payoff for attending college is unbelieveable. College board online says "people with a bachelor's degree earn over 60 percent more than those with only a high school diploma. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000." Its sad knowing that so many of our fellow Americans who are to endure the given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will never get to pursue the happiness of college. Its sad to know that somewhere out there could be the next Albert Einstein, who will not prosper because they can not afford the rising tuition costs. Maybe the day has come when the land of opportunity has seized to hold opportunity.

Is Piedmont College a Safe Campus?

Yesterday, my sister had the TV turned to Doctor Phil. On this particular episode, the theme was about campus safety and featured guests who were college students that had experienced some kind of safety violation on campus. According to a special report on Reader’s Digest.com, “This country's 6,000 colleges and universities report some 40,000 burglaries, 3,700 forcible sex offenses, 7,000 aggravated assaults and 48 murders a year.“ So, is Piedmont College a safe campus?
Well, first, I think we are doing well because we have Campus Police. I like how they are station in Getman-Babock Hall, which makes them right at that dorm, plus a short distance from the other dorms. I also like how there is a fire detector and a sprinkler in my dorm room, and I hope they are in every dorm room too. That and a fire drill that we perform earlier this semester covers fire safety, I believe.
Also, the new warning system installed this month is great. I like that it is loud, so you should be able to hear it all around campus. I think this will be great to notify students of bad weather or other things that may affect their safety.
However, I think there are a few things that can be improved upon. I don’t know if there are many cameras on campus, which could help lower any crime because people could be deterred from doing bad things because they could be caught on camera. Also, some areas of the campus are not that well lit, especially when you are going by the small playground area beside Brooks and Camp Halls. But this only a problem at night, and sometimes it feels better when you walk with someone else. All in all, I think our campus is going in the right direction of campus safety, despite some minor issues.

Throwing dollars away

The bottled water industry has been telling us for years that tap water is not safe and we NEED to buy bottled water. Research now shows that they are full of crap.

The Associated Press released an article today with findings challenging the popular impression and marketing pitch that bottled water is purer than tap water, the researchers say.

Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, said the study is based on the faulty premise that a contaminant is a health concern "even if it does not exceed the established regulatory limit or no standard has been set," the Associated Press.

The study tested 10 brands of bottled. 38 chemicals including bacteria, caffeine, the pain reliever acetaminophen, fertilizer, solvents, plastic-making chemicals and the radiopactive element strontium were tested. Researcher sampled one batch for each of the 10 brands. Eight did not have contaminants high enough to warrant further testing. But two brands did, so more tests were done and those revealed chlorine byproducts above California's standard, the group reported.

The researchers said that Sam's Choice sold by Wal-mart and Acadia of Giant Food supermarkets were the two brands that received further testing. Moreover, the Wal-mart brand was five times California's limit for one particular chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane.

Why are these brands still on the shelf? Why is the FDA not pulling these big name brands off the shelves as I write this?

The environmental group wants Wal-mart to label its bottles in California with a warning because the chlorine-based contaminants have been linked to cancer.

To label the water still would not be enough. Something needs to be done. If these results are true than Americans have been lied to and cheated out of their hard earned dollars everyday.

Researchers recommend that people worried about water contaminants drink tap water with a carbon filter.

It is sad after all of these years that we find out that expensive bottled water is no safer than free tap water. As said earlier some contaminants found in the bottled water were linked to causing cancer.

All of you bottled water drinkers stop throwing away your dollars on buying cancer and start purchasing really great healthcare plans.

Society's Influence on Film and Vis Versa

The film industry has always been a very powerful one. One genre of film, fantasy, takes what we imagine and makes it a reality. Action movies do the same but use explosions and guns. Horror movies use lighting and sound, or the lack there of to make our worst fears come to life. These things we imagine and are made into reality come from us; they come from our society. Social norms that are broken or events that have happened in the past are used to fuel the stories of most movies. So does society influence film or is it the other way around? Does film influence society? What about documentaries? This genre of film is the most influenced by society. It is a reflection of the reality of our world, not the one we imagine. For example, after the tragedy of Columbine, director Michael Moore produced his documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." This film was about what happened and what helped it happen. He said that if America was more strick on gun control, then the chance of two teenagers killing in their high school might not have happened. His other films, such as "Sicko" and "Slacker" also deal with other "problems" in society. They show us what's really going on behind the scenes and most of the time something is changed because of them. I think documentaries are the most powerful genre of film for these reasons. So as movies influence us with turning fantasy into reality, I think film influences us by showing us reality. It works both ways and is effective on both sides.

Not another bailout plan...

Do you think the bailout is worth it? To many different millionaires the sound of this bailout brings music to their ears. Many of them fear that they would lose their comfortable style of living. However, this isn't the case for 80% of America. Middle to lower class citizens are outraged at the over whelming response to this crisis and to how fast this country responded. With the near collapse of the major financial lenders, FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC, the country is beginning to see a trend in the construction of bailout plans. The average American in today's society has no clue as to what it means to be invested in the stock market, there for feels no direct effect of the stock market crash This bailout gives many financial institutions an excuse to rely on the government and not themselves to correct this problem. Experts state that if there is no other option for these companies to correct their problems then this bailout plan may work well in their interest. Though, it may benefit companies to come up with other ways of fixing their situation instead of waiting on a lengthy process and following procedures which waste tax payers money, they still want to rely on the government. Large companies, like JPMorgan, feel as though everything is based on credit. To many, credit is based on trust and establishing trust in the credit system will get their company back on track, which is why they are denying to use the bailout plan. I feel as though people should be held accountable for the thing that they do. If the U.S decided to create a bailout plan for the rich then there should have been a bailout plan years ago for the poor. I do agree with the idea that companies have the right to find ways to bail themselves out, which uses less tax payer money.

Pacman; You Lose!

The saga of Adam “Pacman” Jones has blanketed every sports show for the past two years. The 6th overall draft pick of the Tennessee Titans was suspended in 2007 due to repeatedly breaching the National Football League’s player-conduct policy. After a brief stent as a professional wrestler during his suspension, Jones was reinstated to the league this year. He was traded to the Dallas Cowboys on April 30th of this year and things looked to be taking a turn for the better. He told reporters to refer to him as Adam, after apparently ditching his wild mannered alter ego of Pacman. According to the Los Angeles Times, Adam “Pacman” Jones was suspended indefinitely from the NFL on October 14th for yet another altercation. To this I say, good riddance.
His original suspension was sparked by and altercation outside of a Las Vegas night club. This fight led to the shooting of the club’s bouncer, who was paralyzed from his wounds according to wsmv.com. I feel that the NFL was justified in this original suspension. The NFL is a business. Anyone working an average job would be reprimanded for bringing a bad light onto the company they work for. How could the NFL be any different? Their product, the football broadcast, can become more difficult to sell to families if there is a suspected shooting accomplice roaming the sidelines.
The most recent incident, reported by the Los Angeles Times, was between Jones and his bodyguard. What few people know is that this bodyguard was hired by the Dallas Cowboys to keep Jones out of trouble. Allegedly fueled by alcohol, Jones got into a fight with his bodyguard at a Dallas hotel. If it were up to me, he would be out of the NFL for life.
The NFL must sell its product to as many people as possible. This includes men, women, and children. These children look up to NFL stars as role models. What kind of message would the NFL by sending by letting a thug represent their company? Adam “Pacman” Jones should not be allowed to play in the NFL ever again. He has repeatedly disgraced himself, his team, and the company that he is employed by.

It's almost that time again. Our televisions, mailboxes, radio dials, and voice mails are being flooded with campaign messages, all trying to get us to vote for a particular candidate. According to the U.S. Census, from 2000 to 2004, there was an increase of 12.5 million registered voters in the United States. Why? Are people becoming more concerned about key issues? Maybe. Are we getting more interesting candidates? Yes. For whatever reason, we are taking more of an interest in who we put into office. But are voters really educated on their candidates? I would say no.
Youtube is full of videos claiming Barack Obama is a terrorist who plots against America. The same site has hundreds of compilations of videos of John McCain struggling through speeches with the help of aids standing behind him. However, there are also sites such as www.smartvoter.org and www.vote-smart.org who have launched their own campaigns against ignorant voting. Sure 12.5 million more voters is great, but if those people are voting on an image or an impulse, do you feel confident about their decisions? These sites and others tell potential voters how and when to register to vote, issues and candidates' positions, and how to tell the phony information from what is really happening. These lists could help the increasing numbers of voters, vote smarter.
Instead of being informed by sensational forwarded emails or Youtube videos, voters should heed these educational websites and become informed on what really matters in their candidate of choice. They may even use these to decide who IS their candidate of choice. If you know a new voter, a potential voter, or someone who just doesn't get the whole educated voter thing, encourage them to research and know what their opinion is.

Free Choice: Assignment Due Wednesday, October 15

Choose your own blog topic. Pick something that's controversial, something that you can argue either for or against, or somehow have an opinion about. Use this opportunity to convince readers to believe the way you do about something you care about. As always, do your research and use proper attribution.

Gouging is unfair

I do not think price gouging is acceptable and the law against it should stay. I don’t believe you should pay for something that isn’t the fair price for it. Gouging isn’t selling something at a fair price. With the mortgage crisis going on, money is getting tight for some people. The price of food items like milk is also going up. I don’t think people should have to choose between buying gas or feeding their children.
I think fair capitalism would lie in true competition. The consumer should decide what business gets their money based on the quality of the product and their own personal tastes. If the only way a gas station can afford to stay open is to raise it’s price to match all the others, even if it is a high price, then I believe that is alright. People who connected to gas stations need to feed their families too.
I think limits on how much gas you can buy are a good idea, as long as they are enforced. I liked what happened in the last gas crisis. People could only go to get gas on a certain day, depending on their license plate. That’s an good way to make sure people weren’t getting gas when they weren’t supposed to because you could see that they had the wrong tag for that day.
I think gouging is the wrong way to go here. I think we should limit how much people should buy at one setting or only let certain people be able to get gas on a certain day. I think if that happened, consumers could buy gas without gas stations having to raise them up so high just to stay in business.

The line did not start with you

One month ago I used to complain every time I filled up my SUV because it was so expensive. Now, I am praying that the government would stop micro-managing gas stations and allow them to raise their prices.

Some may call this gouging while others refer to it as capitalism. I say it is capitalism. Why does the government have the right to determine how much money a gas station owner can make? Clothing stores like Versace sell its clothes at significantly higher prices than Target, and the government doesn’t tell them they have to lower its prices.

Georgia is still feeling the effects of Hurricane Ike and it didn’t even hit us. There is NO gasoline to be found. Most gas stations do not have fuel to sell its customers and the one’s that do are limiting the amount that someone can purchase.

While driving down the road yesterday, from Clarkesville to Buford, I passed 27 local gas stations without fuel; this is ridiculous. I did, however, find one gas station in Buford that had gas. Too no surprise, I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to the pump. When I did finally get to the pump there was a note that read “30 dollar limit. Please Pay inside.” After driving an hour for gas I was not happy. I noticed other drivers around me slamming things, being rude to others, and some even cursing at other drivers to hurry. I guess those people were so ignorant that they did not realize that we too waited 45 minutes for gasoline.

Gas stations that actually have gasoline are choosing to limit the amount of fuel a driver can purchase. The owner at the BP in Buford said he doesn’t like telling people what to do but his gas station is running out of gas and he wants as many people to benefit from his gas as possible. I respect him looking out for the greater good, I just don’t like it.

If the gas stations were allowed to raise the price of gasoline significantly it would decrease the long lines at the pump; consumers would have to cut down on unnecessary driving, topping off just because they have the time to sit in long lines, and find ways to car pool to reserve fuel. Raising gas prices is not gouging it is capitalism.

The United States consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day (CIA World Fact book) because of this not all gas stations would choose to raise its prices. All gas station owners are in business to make money. No matter what the prices are they will still make money. Drivers would have the ability to choose to sit in long lines because the gas is cheaper or drive right up to the pump because gas is more expensive. Just like the clothing stores, you get what you pay for. At Versace you pay for name brand quality clothing and at a higher priced gas station you would finally get to buy TIME.

Gouging OR Capitalism?

Has the time come when Americans living in the southeast have to plan their lives around conserving as much gas as possible. Today Americans living in the southeast half of the United States could drive for miles searching for gas and see nothing but Wal-Mart plastic bags covering every nozzle or prices reaching $4.50 a gallon. With the sky rocketing gas prices and the unbelievable gas shortage its easy to ponder the thought of gouging or capitalism. Ken Medlock, an energy specialist at Rice University in Houston says "the closing of refineries prior to the two hurricanes created a shortage in the gasoline distribution system for many areas. We had sort of a double whammy [hit]. Gustav resulted in about 15 percent of our nation's refining capacity being shut down, and Ike added another 19 percent. So, the fact that those storms were back to back means that for about three weeks, you had very limited refining capacity in this country." With very limited refining capacity some believe that gas station owners are gouging the prices of gas, charging exorbitant or excessive prices for gas following a disaster is not only unethical, it's illegal in some states. In certain states individuals or businesses found guilty of price gouging could face fines up to $1,000 per violation. Or are the high gas prices just a prime example of capitalism? Personally its clear that the gas crisis is capitalism being taken advantage of. The private business owners in the free market are playing their customers and making huge profit off of it. Small regional gas stations such as Race Trac charging $4.50 a gallon is insane, and making the owner of Race Trac a ton of money. Medlock also says "the Department of Energy is reporting the lowest gasoline inventories in the United States since 1967. But he says the problem will not last more than another couple of weeks, as crews get refineries back up and running at full capacity. " When the problem is dissolved will the gas prices recede to a more considerable price? So many of us Americans hope so, and fear that the day may come when the cost of our commutes to work will outweight our salaries. Its a scary thought but is scary possible. Here's an idea how about President Bush's 700 billion dollar bailout plan for the economy recues our pitiful oil industry and our dependence on foreign oil.