Professional Dress Codes: Tattoos

By: Abby D.

I had originally planned to write about the third and final presidential debate, but after fumbling about and seeing how many other posts on the blog were about the candidates, I figured I’d add a little something new.

With the increasingly popular addition of tattoos on young people’s bodies, a certain question arises to the more intelligent and ambitious minds: Will this affect a possible career someday? Unfortunately, in some cases, the answer is a strict yes. There are certain companies that maintain a strict policy against visible tattoos; mostly companies that deal with the public.

According to Human Resources managers, when questioned about the subject of a possible employee with visible tattoos versus a possible employee with no visible tattoos, almost every single HR would choose the more clean cut applicant.

Tattoos have an interesting history, as shown in a bulleted list below, according to an article on "Business Tips" by Burleson Consulting. 

• 1850 - 1900 - Tattoos used to be the bastion of carnival freak shows, with people flocking to the circus to see the amazing tattooed Lady.
   
• 1900 - 1950 - Tattoos in the early 20th century indicated a Sailor or Marine.  In these cases, they did not have any social stigma, except that tattoos were generally indicative of enlisted men.  Few Navy or Marine officers dared to draw on their body.
   
• 1950 - 1960 - In the early 1950's, tattoos became popular with the criminal element, mostly outlaw bikers, social outcasts and the mentally ill.  It was during this time tattoos took on a more ominous reputation.
   
• 1960 - 1990 - This was the age of "prison tats" where having a tattoo indicated to some people that you were a tough, ignorant, convicted felon.
   
• 1990-2008 - Today we see hordes of low-class young people drawing on themselves with free abandon, (almost 30% of people in the 1980's).  These people do not understand that a tattoo may effectively prohibit them from pursuing a professional career, regardless of their other qualifications.

The man who wrote this article obviously has a biased opinion, one that does not approve of tattoos, but it still gives an interesting background of how tattoos came to be popular. When it comes to smaller businesses, visible tattoos are usually more accepted, probably due to the more informal work environment and friendlier atmosphere. Some well known companies with strict guidelines on visible tattoos are Geico Insurance, U. S. Postal Service, Starwood Hotels and Dennys restaurants.

Though the first amendment of the Constitution states freedom of expression, speech, and the press, companies still have a right to ban employees with tattoos in the workplace. It is argued that tattoos can have a negative impact on the image of the company, so it’s legal to ban them.

So this is my question to you, what do you think?

Voting History

By: Nicole B.

In America, there were many steps and important dates to finally allow citizens to vote for the things they believe in most. The voting history of the Untied States of America has been a long and tiring one with many Amendments and laws passed to finally get to where we are today, a strong republic government with democratic traditions

The timeline of US voting history is wide spread. Starting in 1787 right after we won the war for our independence against Great Britain, we were able to make our own laws. This is when the Constitution first gave land owning white men the right to vote if they were 21 years of age or older. This meant that only one in fifteen people could vote, compared to more than 225 million people who were able to vote in 2008. This continued until the time frame of 1800s to the 1850s when religious qualifications were eliminated and almost all white males could vote. This meant that Jews, Quakers or Catholics were not given the right to vote or run for office. By the 1870s, the 15^th Amendment was ratified. Which protected any citizen from being denied the right to vote because of race or color, but people were not happy and African Americans were being threatened and even killed. 

By the 1920s, the 19^th Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote because half of the states did not allow women to vote. Women in New York and many western states were given the right to vote before the 19^th Amendment however. This was ratified because of the Suffrage Movement and two key women in the movement, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. In the 1960s, the 23^rd Amendment and 24^th Amendment were ratified. These added voters from DC to the presidential electorate and eliminated poll tax. These came after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which helped to eliminate the poll tax and also the literacy tests. Finally, in 1971, the 26^th Amendment was ratified stating that people who were 18 years of age or older had the right to vote. There are however, 19 states that are allowed to vote at the age of 17 years old for primary elections if they will be 18 years of age by Election Day. These states are in the dark purple below.

Also, check out a short video on voting history: 

 So who has the right to vote now? People who are legal residents of the state where they want to vote are given the right to vote. This prevents non-citizens to come in and vote because they may be unfamiliar with the candidates. In order for people to vote in Wisconsin, they need to be a citizen here for at least 10 days before they can vote. Also, No state can set the minimum age for voting in any election at more than 18 but states can set the age for voting lower than 18. In order to vote, you must be registered within the state as well; every state except North Dakota requires this to be done before voting. Wisconsin allows people to register on the same day to vote where most states require at least 20-30 days before the voting. Finally, states no longer have the ability to not allow people to vote based of their abilities to read and write.   

Here are some facts about Wisconsin’s voting history. Wisconsin is in fact considered a swing state in the president elections and is also granted 10 electoral votes. It became a state in 1848 and was mainly republican through 1928 until the Great Depression and World War II happened. In the last 10 elections, Wisconsin voted republican 3 times and democratic 7 times. People also voted with the overall winning candidate 7 out of the ten times. According to multiple Presidential Polls in Wisconsin this year, Obama seems to be winning over our state. Rasmussen Reports says that Obama is leading 50% to 48%. While the well known Marquette University Law School Poll says that Obama is winning 49%-48%.

It is important that kids like us get informed about our voting history and rights to make decisions for our country. Soon enough, we will be able to vote and have a say in our government. So many years ago, people were not as fortunate as we are now to have the right to vote. It is a gift that we have and we should not take it for granted.

Brookfield Spa Shooting

By: Max D.

Today as I drove with my family to buy pumpkins we were alarmed by the breaking news spread throughout the radio, and as we listened we were alarmed to hear that there had been a shooting at a salon across from Brookfeild  Square. Three women were found dead and four were injured. There was also the threat of a bomb when the police entered the building and found and propane canister in the middle of the hall. Luckily the bomb threat was called off. You may not think it is but this situation has much to do with the way our country is run.

The choice to have a concealed carry license is open to anyone who is eligible to receive it. My dad has his license yet rarely ever uses or has the need to, but there is always that chance where it can come in handy to defend yourself and the lives of others in a life or death situation. Think about if there had been someone in that building with a concealed weapon that was able to save three lives and everyone else from harm!? The final decision of most laws to me seems to come from the question, what if?

Along side with concealed carry is the right to bear arms, which in my case should be allowed, is highly controversial in this situation. This was a topic in class that is very important to me. I like to hunt and so do a large portion of our population, we use weapons that are legally bought. What I think is that only hunting weapons should be legal to purchase, while handguns and high powered machine guns are not available except for the army. The shooting at the salon is a perfect example of gun sales in an improper function.

If you take away the rights to purchase such weapons other problems will arise. The black market is huge into the sale of illegal weapons and by us taking away more weapons gives them the opportunity to make a meal of it.

The biggest parts of the campaign this is year have to do with budgets and taxes. Taxes are what fuel the prosperity of a nation and how proficiently it runs. If we cut taxes the people benefit in a gain of money but lose the well being of their surroundings. I believe that taxes are important despite the terrible feeling of when you have to pay them. Police and swat benefit majorly from our tax money and the police in the shooting handled the situation the best they could and it was all due to the funding they receive. If they didn’t have funding the chance of any minor mistakes could have caused more death or injury.

After a such a tragic incident like this it really makes you think about the world you live in, your life can change drastically at any given point in time whether you expect it or not. Small things can make a difference and can even save lives.  

The news report video is on this link.

The Increasing Tension

By: Dustin B.

The more Obama and Romney debate, the more increasingly obvious it becomes that the two just, really don’t like each other.

In the most recent debate, both of them were even more aggressive than they had previously been, whether to get points across or solely for the fact that they don’t get along well. It makes you really start to wonder, is it necessary to debate this strongly, or could it been done in a civil manner?

Along with various other things said during the second debate, Romney even accused the president of misleading voters about the terrorist attack on the US mission in Libya.

This of course, greatly offended Obama. He responded strongly by basically saying how dare you. To quote him directly, he said “The suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive, that's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as commander in chief."

Obama has not often been as aggressive as he was the other night, whether being that he had taken notice of the aggressive way that vice president Joe Biden does things, or that he simply felt the need to step things up. He showed everyone that when necessary, he really can be aggressive.

The majority of the debate consisted of the two firing things back and forth between each other. Soon after the debate started, Obama cleanly attacked Romney over his opposition to the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. To which Romney felt the need to retaliate, instead of simply moving on. "He said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt," Romney said. "And that's right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy's and Continental airlines come out stronger."

So, instead of just letting it go, and accepting that Obama had gotten the upper hand on him and moving on, he continued to make himself look foolish in the eyes of many.

Near the end of the night, Romney said "I care about 100% of the American people; I want 100% of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future." While Obama, had not mentioned the 47% comments all night. But Romney had decided to give him a reminder.

Although I myself am not legally able to vote until soon after our presidential election, I still feel that it is necessary to be knowledgeable about the candidates. And to those that are able to vote, to choose what they believe in and to do so. Meaning that when you go to vote, remember all that you know about the candidates, and who you think will be the best for our country.

Swords of Lies and Shields of Fibs

By: Maggie B.

We're in the final stretch of the race for who will win the presidency. With one debate down, three to go and the political climate surrounding all of us taking on an increasingly intense tone, it's hard not to wonder... can what they're saying all be true?

The answer is simple: no. Being a liberal, I tend to take most things Obama says as true and doubt plenty of the things that Mitt Romney says, but am I right in doing that? Another simple answer: no. The same goes for the Republicans who put Romney on a pedestal and take everything he says at face value.

The October 15th issue of Time magazine featured an artistic cover photo of the two candidates facing each other and glowering. Their faces are made of words and phrases that they use a lot; Obama's cheek says "We cut taxes for 95% of working families" and Romney's nose says, "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficit." The focus of the cover article is the misleading statements, half-truths, low blows and broad generalizations that both candidates and parties make at each other. It brings to light that no matter which side you're on, you've probably been had at least a few times by your candidate of choice.

As a diehard liberal, I opened the magazine drooling for a scathing article decrying Mitt Romney and all his lies while putting Obama up on the righteous platform he belongs, but I didn't find either of those things. What I got was a seven-page spread of statements from each candidate that had been taken apart and analyzed by the experts at Time magazine and found to be wrong, misleading or only partially true.

First, I'll disseminate some of my own candidate's untruths. I'll stick to only a few of them:

What he said: "We do not need an outsourcing pioneer in the Oval Office."

Reality: Bain Capital was doing what it needed to to make money, and it was certainly not the first to outsource jobs. To be fair, Mitt Romney wasn't fully responsible for the outsourcing when it happened.

The Truth: This statement is a distortion.

What he said: "The U.S. is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the past two decades."

Reality: The nation's dependence on foreign oil has been steadily dropping since 2005 and has little to do with who's president and more to do with who companies buy oil from -- this wasn't regulated by the government.

The Truth: This is a true statement, but it's misleading for Obama to take credit for it.

What he said: "Romney would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

Reality: Although a part of the Republican party platform is to cut taxes on the upper class (which would inevitably raise them on lower classes), Mitt Romney actually hasn't specified what his tax plan is. Is that bad? Yes, but it doesn't mean we should accuse him of something he hasn't proposed at this time.

The Truth: This statement is speculation.

Before you think to yourself, Wow, Obama really is full of it, I better not trust a word he says, read a few untruths from the Romney side of the field:

What he said: "I have a plan to create 12 million jobs."

Reality: Independent economists predict growth of about 12 million new jobs over the next four years no matter who is president.

The Truth: Mitt Romney is taking credit, in advance, for something that would happen anyway; it's like saying "I have a plan to make October colder than September was so that all the leaves fall off the trees." That's not something someone can take credit for, you know?

What he said: "We are inches away from no longer being a free economy."

Reality: The conservative Heritage Foundation ranks us as no. 10 in the world for economic freedom worldwide, ahead of Germany, the U.K. and Japan.

The Truth: This statement is false, even by his own party's standards.

What he said: "Under Obama's [welfare] plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

Reality: Obama granted waivers to a few states to allow for flexibility in order to more effectively end dependency by a welfare-to-work system.

The Truth: This claim is 100% false.

After reading all this, it's hard to know where to get information from. Who's biased, who's lying, is anyone telling the truth? The best thing you can do is fact-check. If you hear from Obama on TV that Romney and Paul Ryan voted for a law that banned all abortion, or if you see in a debate that Mitt Romney wants to completely eliminate Medicare, look it up. Break away from the sound bytes and attack ads and see for yourself what's true -- you can't always believe what you hear.

Voter ID Law: What is it and who does it affect?

By: Lindsey V.

Right now, 30 states have present laws for voters to show their ID at polls this November, but there are 34 states that have passed their voter ID laws.  Certain states, such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi, don’t require a voter ID, but the laws were enacted there.

Some people may know about the voter ID law, but some may not. The article called, “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted To Know About Voter ID Laws” will explain everything you will need to know.

This law helps verify that the person voting is who they say they are. This law has mostly been passed in the last couple of years and makes the voter show ID before they vote. This can get confusing though, because from state to state this law varies. In the map showed, it shows the different states and whether they are a strict photo, photo, non-photo, or no voter ID law.  These different categories also may be confusing. Here it is broken down:

Strict vs non strict: in the strict states, a voter cannot vote before a ID is showed.  If they are not able to show ID while voting they are given a provisional ballot. The provisional are kept separately from the other ballots, and if the individual can show a valid ID a couple days after, there vote can be counted. People in “non-strict” states may sign an affidavit of identity in order to vote if they do not present an ID during this process.

These voter ID laws are strongly opposed by some.  Some may ask why. They are strongly opposed because it may affect elderly, minority, and low income groups that tend to vote democratic. A photo ID can be costly and a hassle to some. A study shows that 11 percent of eligible voters lack necessary photo ID and some may live in places where they may have troubles accessing an ID office.

On the flip side of this latest argument of why some oppose voter ID laws, studies show that people lacking these IDs are less likely to vote anyways.  Also they found that those lacking were generally young people, those without college education, Hispanics and poor. 

What made this law come into action? Well, in 2007 there were 82 convictions noted in the New York Times analysis. There are not that many cases, but since it happens, it will keep happening. By enacting this law, it will help there be less problems while in the close votes. It will help the election remain fair.

Here is information specific to Wisconsin:

In Wisconsin the voter ID law was held unconstitutional by the state judge and is not in effect. Each elector is required to show identification. The different forms of identification include: Wisconsin drivers license, ID card issued by US uniformed service, Wisconsin non-driver ID, Passport, Certification of Naturalization, Student ID card with signature.  If they do not present a ID at the time of voting they will be given a provisional ballot.  They will have to bring this ballot to the election inspector before 4pm on the Friday following the election date. 

Below is a video where the voter ID law is named unconstitutional in Wisconsin.

Now, when election day comes up, you will know what problems some people around the country are having with the voters ID law, and you will know what to present if you are a Wisconsin resident. Do you think this law is a good idea?

The Youth Perspective

Posted by: Mrs. Jecha

Here is a video put together by some teenagers in California.  Do you agree with them?