The KSU Sentinel

As I view the KSU Sentinel, I find myself interested in the opinion and political pieces of the website, both current and past issues. The story title “Investigators Hungry for Answers at KSU” piqued my interests. I’d like to know if there is nepotism and corruption in my local government and I want it published by my local newspaper. The opinion piece about retail stores bypassing the Thanksgiving holiday and going straight for Christmas, titled, “Let’s Abolish Thanksgiving.” I have said to my wife on several occasions, that It seems like the Christmas decorations go up the day before Halloween. I see from these two articles that they are inline with my current views of what I want to hear. I read an article about Hispanic Heritage month, and the diversity of KSU, which is a big issue in our household. All of these common interest articles lead me to believe that students at KSU are interested in the same things we all are interested in: crime, discovering corruption, and diversity. These items are the same types of articles I look for when I look at news websites. I read an article about the need for inclusion of immigrants in getting in-state tuition. This is just another item that effects of our society: immigration. The writers and editorial staff talk about the same current national issues that I read but they are localized for KSU students on things that effect KSU students. I mentioned crime because there was an article I read about a shooting a few blocks away from campus that raised concerns for students. Sadly, deadly shootings all over the country are being publicized because of the senseless nature of them. I don’t care where you stand on the fence of gun control, I feel that guns used in crimes are clearly an issue, nationally and at KSU. The Sentinel is different from the USA today, because the Sentinel covers the interests of students at KSU, but the substance in both papers are the same: politics, crime, diversity, and pop culture; things that seem to pique all of our interests, no matter the age, or location.

Ending of China's One Child Policy: Formulating A Response

            China announced it will end it forced one child policy and raise the limit to two children. The change was necessary to curb China’s expected slow population growth. The old policy was put in place in the late 1970’s to stop the growth of poverty in China. Now that China is the second biggest economy in the world, the population has aged and there will be fewer children to take care of their parents, and, possibly, two sets of grandparents. The government felt it was time to change the policy, but some experts disagreed, and felt that the original policy was unnecessary. Researchers are expecting an overburdening of health care and elderly care systems in the future due to the pre-1970’s population growing into those systems.

            With this change, things still aren’t any different in China in the realm of human rights. Since the 1970’s, women have been forced to abort children and forced into sterilization to meet the regulations. Yet all of these measures are unnecessary because the birth rate was actually slowing down as China’s economy was growing. Many families will not take advantage of the two child policy and stay with only one child. It is looked at the cost of success in China. 1 out of 11 families had applied for having a second child when some restrictions were eased last year. These measure still don’t stop the fact that the government of China is in their societies’ bedroom; dictating how they are to run their personal life. Sadly, there is still a large group of impoverished people in China, and very little is being done to raise them out of it; changing this policy does not to improve their condition or lift the heavy human rights violations that the Chinese government has burdened upon its people.

Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/asia/china-one-child-policy/

Response:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/ghitis-china-one-child-policy/index.html