Tag: #opinion

By Kit Weber, Photo Editor

One of the major financial concerns in owning a pet is the question of whether to get it spayed.

When an animal is spayed or neutered, the reproductive organs are removed, usually to help limit the chance of future unwarranted offspring.

Although many owners opt for this option, it is still slightly controversial. Some believe you shouldn’t spay your pet in fear of interfering with its personality or way of life. Others believe you should spay your pet to keep them from searching for mates, potentially causing them harm by escaping. What’s the right answer?

According to The Humane Society of the United States, there are an estimated 6 to 8 million homeless animals entering animal shelters every year. Barely half of these animals are adopted, and the rest are euthanized.

When an owner allows their pet to have even one litter, it adds to this overpopulation. This overpopulation first needs to be fixed by increasing adoption of animals at risk of euthanization from kill shelters.

Even if homes are found for all the offspring of an unspayed female, there are then less homes available to pets who already need them.

Neutered male dogs live 18 percent longer than those not neutered and spayed female dogs live 23 percent longer than unspayed females, according to The Humane Society of the United States.

Another benefit of neutering is a reduced urge to roam and mark their territory. By not going into heat and searching or fighting for mates, pet owner headaches are lessened.

Often, an unneutered pet’s instinct is so strong to look for mates they will cross busy streets and be struck by moving vehicles. Even with purely indoor pets, spaying or neutering prevents potential behavioral concerns.

According to Ten, a movement to end feline homelessness, foregoing spaying or neutering an indoor cat increases the risk of reproductive cancers and undesirable mating behaviors.

When it comes to food and finances, there have been studies showing neutered pets simply require less. According to The No-Kill Cat Nation Home, pets who are neutered need fewer calories than those unneutered due to a lowered metabolic rate. This caloric difference can sometimes can reach up to 25% less for those neutered.

More truths are hidden when owners claim they want to breed their dog or cat as a “purebred,” so they remain unneutered.

The truth is about one in every four pets in a shelter is purebred or designer breed according to Ten.

One of the largest issues people have with neutering their pets is the price. The lesser known reality is that charitable organizations, even veterinarians, offer lower prices.

Consider the costs of raising your pet’s cute, new litter: the food, the vaccinations, the time and more. Ultimately, the option of spaying or neutering your pet is much cheaper, healthier and happier in the long run.

By Maddie Matos, A&E Editor

An heir and spare were already in the British royal family. Now there is an extra spare.

On April 23, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, gave birth to a son. He is the third child between Middleton and her husband William, the Duke of Cambridge.

The baby was born at the historic St. Mary’s hospital in  London, England. This location has been the hospital of choice for royal births, with both baby’s siblings and its father born there.

In September last year, Kensington palace announced that the couple were expecting their third child. Later, in October of 2017, the expecting date was released to the public.

The sons name has not been released to the public yet, but traditional British names are being considered in the public’s eyes. The duke and duchesses’ oldest child is named Prince George and their second oldest is named Charlotte.

The new baby is fifth in line for the throne, behind his grandfather, Charles, Prince of Wales, his father the duke, and his two older siblings.

The likelihood of this new prince becoming king is slim, but he will have many other royal duties and be in the public eye. He will most likely have roles like his uncle, Prince Harry.

The British royal family has been a source of constant public press and criticism in the last century. The marriage and divorce between Charles and Princess Diana has been one of the most public relationships in history, with Diana’s untimely death pushing the royal family to harsh criticism that is still common to this day.

Marriages and new children provide positive press for the family, making their popularity reach record highs every time. Yet this new baby has not received all the hype that his siblings did.

Being fifth in line to the throne can be hard. The public can easily dismiss you or forget about you. The chances of you gaining any true power is slim. Yet this prince should not be discounted. Throughout history, there have been rulers of England that have succeeded to the throne when they were previously thought to be nobody. Both Queen Elizabeth’s were far from first in line for the throne. So was King Henry VIII. So was Queen Victoria
I for a brief time.

These kings and queens all are remembered as rulers, rising in the ranks as a forerunner for the throne. The new prince has just as much of a chance as any other person in line for the throne.

By Tung Nguyen, Online Editor

President Trump, despite his past denouncements toward president Obama’s policies in regard to the military fluctuations in Syria, publicly announced his firm stance against President Putin and President Assad as well as his decisions to get the “nice, new and smart” Tomahawk involved.

In the same tweet, President Trump also mentioned his concern about the violations of civil rights toward President Assad by calling him a “Gas Killing Animal.” The big question has been raised immediately of why President Trump, who has been completely indifferent of such subject, did so and why now.

First of all, President Trump may want to regain his public credibility and people’s trust in their leader after the ongoing “call and response” economic war with China recently. Earlier this month, Washington and Beijing have been attacking each other turn by turn with the inflated tariffs on China’s products. This trade battle put an overcast above the U.S’s domestic market and dropped the President’s approval rating to a much lower level. As a president who cannot care more about his support rate and the heat between China and the U.S. does not seem to cool down anytime soon, President Trump now has to redirect the public to an international affair.

On the other hand, by publicly stands against President Putin, President Trump can soothes the uprising doubts regarding to the probability of Russia dipping her hand in the U.S.’s last election. The investigation is close to its climax when Robert Mueller, the Special counsel, accused 13 Russians on February 16 for their attempts to spend millions of rubles on Trump’s campaign. More than that, recently, according to the CNN, the White House revealed to the press that President Trump is capable of firing Mueller and hiring a different Special counsel. Even though there isn’t any official decision made yet in regard to the future of Mueller, this could be something worth raising
eyebrows.

Second of all, President Trump can leans on his concern toward the violation of civil rights in Syria to retake the U.S.’s military presence in the Middle-East. On the global political chessboard, Russia is becoming more and more dominant on this regions after many constant military interferences in Syria. Moreover, the announcement of the U.S. retreating her troops from the Middle-East by President Trump worried the Western allies and created doubts about the leading position of the U.S. By warning Russia and President Assad about the possible counter-attacks with Tomahawk and, recently, firing these missiles at East Ghouta, President Trump is showing his capabilities to the whole wide world and calming the European fellows in some ways. This seems to be the only choice for the U.S. to regain her possession of this troublesome region.

However, firing Tomahawk at East Ghouta can be very risky for the presidency of President Trump. I personally think that if President Trump cannot keep these strikes on check and sinks himself in the prolong wars that have been broken out for almost a decade, not only many other soldiers and civilians from both sides will be crushed but the U.S. will also be positioned in a face-to- face war with Russia. Who knows what can happen if the tension
remains unsolved, if not escalated.

By Maddie Matos, A&E Editor

On Monday night, the faculty of Ohio Wesleyan University put into writing that reporters are no longer allowed into their meetings. Transcript reporters are no longer allowed into the meetings and the editor-in- chief will be emailed the summary of the meetings each month.

The staff voted 56-18 to keep reporters absent from meetings. This was conducted by a paper ballot.

The same night, the faculty also approved the committee for free speech on campus.

The idea of having a committee for free speech while banning journalism, the constant provider for free speech and freedom of the press, is blasphemy. The school is being hypocritical for endorsing free speech but taking away the right for someone to report on these meetings.

In an era of “fake news” and distrust of the media, it can seem almost impossible for anyone in the business to try and do their job. Most reporters simply are covering their stories and reporting facts, not attack someone or an institution.

The OWU journalism department is a small one. We often struggle for stories at the Transcript, are understaffed and are overworked. We each are attempting to learn what it means to be a journalist in the modern age, and the faculty closing off access to these meetings is inhibiting us more than ever.

Faculty meetings let us know, as both students and journalists, what different departments are doing. They tell us which professors are receiving different awards, what events are happening on campus. Meetings let us get the information out to the reader as soon as possible. Without these meetings, how can we do our very jobs?

The whole purpose of journalism is to inform the public of what is happening in the world. And at a campus as small as OWU’s, faculty meetings are an integral part of any journalist and their work.

In short, every single person on campus will now suffer from this decision. Whether it is a lack of information to the reader, a lack of communication between departments or simply a distrust between each other, we all suffer from this decision.

By Kienan O’Doherty, Editor-In-Chief

The evolution of Marvel can only be described in one word: surreal.

Marvel studios dominates the super hero movie genre, releasing on average two films a year with release dates scheduled up to 2019. Marvel shows no signs of slowing down as it redefines and re-imagines the comic-based film. Marvel’s reach includes T.V. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. soon begins its second season and Daredevil hits Netflix in 2015. What makes Marvel Studios so successful? With phase two coming to a close, where is the Marvel Cinematic Universe going?

The entertainment empire has leveraged its cast of comic-book characters into a multi-billion-dollar film universe with three full trilogies, eight distinct franchises, and a decade of blockbusters and counting. In total, it has made around $11.8 billion since that very first Iron Man movie, unadjusted for inflation (and not including Spider-Man: Homecoming or Thor: Raganarok’s $427 million in returns and counting).

The answer may be in an article written by Quora, and it states “Marvel ensured that the foundation of their universe was built upon the essence of what people loved about their comic books. They also understood that to bring the masses to what has historically been a niche culture requires gentle coaxing. They slowly and smoothly fed us Iron Man and used Nick Fury to make us curious about Captain America and then Thor. They got us to love those three characters and then satiated us by pulling them all together in The Avengers.”

The answer may also lie in a new study from online research provider ZappieStore. Using facial and emotional recognition software called Affectiva, the company sought to find out how much a person loved a comic book movie trailer, how it grabbed their attention, and how likely they’d be to share the trailer on social media.

It was found that audiences emotionally connected more with characters when watching a Marvel trailer, with humor playing a major part in driving up engagement. For instance, 78% of people were considered “lovers” of the Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 trailer because of its engaging characters, humor, action, and music (Fleetwood Mac’s “The Chain”). The trailer for Captain America: Civil War got a 75 percent “love” rating. The ability of these trailers to affect behavior was indicative in both instances, as viewers said they’d be willing to share the preview with others.

The future of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe looks promising. They’ve developed a formula sure to please both movie and comic book fans alike. If Marvel keeps producing great films with lovable, relatable characters, fans will keep flocking to midnight showings and filling seats opening weekend. The only way they can go is up.

By Sherrod Brown, U.S Senator

Last week I had the opportunity to speak with student journalists from several of Ohio’s college newspapers about the issue of net neutrality.

Net neutrality rules help ensure that we have a free and open Internet. Today, that could not be more important, particularly for students.

High-speed Internet is an absolute necessity, and the free flow of information is vital to our everyday lives.

Businesses need it to keep customers coming back. Entrepreneurs need it to start the kinds of innovative projects that create jobs. Students need it to do research for papers and study for exams. Reporters need it to publish stories and get information to their readers. And of course, it’s also nice to have when we’re doing everything from looking up directions to relaxing and streaming your favorite shows.

Having access to high-speed Internet impacts the very way you live, work, study, and enjoy your free time.

That’s why the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to roll back net neutrality rules in favor of large corporations and special interests is just plain wrong.

Last December, the FCC voted to repeal the rules that say your Internet service provider (ISP) will not be allowed to slow down your Internet access, block certain websites, or charge you more based on the shows you watch, the teams you cheer for, the topics you research and study, or the politicians you support.

Rolling back these consumer protections would destroy the Internet’s level playing field. Without net neutrality, broadband providers could create Internet fast lanes and slow lanes, which would squeeze out startups, nonprofits, consumers, and academic institutions who cannot afford to pay exorbitant fees for reliable service.

The FCC formally published the new rules last month, and is set to announce the effective date net neutrality rules will cease to exist in late April.

Starting this spring or summer, ISPs could take the reins and begin shaking down consumers for every last penny.

We cannot let this happen. The Internet doesn’t belong to a wealthy few – it belongs to Ohio students and ordinary people across this country.

That’s why I’m working with my Senate colleagues fighting to pass a resolution in Congress to overturn this disastrous decision. This resolution would reinstate the rules that guarantee us an open Internet.

We only need 51 votes to pass it. Right now, we have 49 Democrats and one Republican signed on.

With 50 votes at the ready, we only need one more brave Republican who is willing to stand with us against corporate special interests.

Now is the time to make your voices heard.

More Senators need to hear from young people about why preserving net neutrality matters, so we can save the free and open Internet.

Sen. Brown serves in the U.S. Senate representing the State of Ohio

By Kienan O’Doherty, Editor-In-Chief

In a world where technology is evolving at a rapid pace, emergency response should as well.

I agree, it is a very odd combination when you first look at it. But when you see an electric car’s debris all
over the highway, you may want to see the logic behind the combination.

Last Friday, a fiery crash occurred between a Tesla Model X and a freeway divider on U.S. Highway 101
in California, leaving the roadster engulfed in flames after being struck by two other cars afterward. The
crash shut down a carpool ramp and two lanes for almost 6 hours, almost twice as long as normal
accident of this type. One of the major problems was the car battery being exposed.

Mountain View’s (CA) Fire Department typically puts out a car fire in minutes. But according to an article
on abc7news.com by Jonathan Bloom, Chief Juan Diaz said this is the first time the department has had
to deal with a Tesla battery that was split open and on fire.

Fire crews arrived at the scene of the accident around 9:30 a.m. Chief Diaz said the last engine company
went back into service around 4:30 p.m. In a gasoline car fire, he said, all companies would’ve likely
been back in service within minutes.

According to the article, Tesla’s no stranger to the Mountain View Fire Department. They’ve conducted
trainings with firefighters, including some at their factory in Fremont (CA), on how to handle Tesla
batteries when they’re damaged in an accident, and how to disconnect batteries from each Tesla model.

So, why did it take so much longer?

Well first, first responders looked over many options. They considered dousing the battery with the
recommended 3,000 gallons of water, but that would’ve required stopping all traffic to run a hose
across the freeway. Another option would’ve been to let the fire burn itself out — but firefighters also
decided against that. So instead, they called on Tesla engineers to come over and help remove the
battery completely.

Being that these first responders had training to deal with this, I believe that it wouldn’t hurt for all first
responders to have more training on this issue, as this is coming to be the age of the electric car. They
need to be more prepared, as the next electric car to catch on fire could even be more catastrophic.

By Tung Nguyen, Online Editor

In the year of 2018, the world has seen a “fairy tale” winning an Oscar for the Best Picture, one of the most prestigious award that a director could achieve. The Shape of Water had overcome its outstanding competitors to be one of a very few fantasy film, if not the only one, to win the Academy Award, thank to president Trump.

President Trump has been a center of many comedic criticisms coming from the Hollywood’s world, if we can recall the opening monologue of Jimmy Kimmel in the last Oscar event. In this year, more than just gently mocking the president through monologue, many films, which subtly ridicule the presidency and the United States’ society after the election, were chosen to compete for the Best Picture such as Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri and The Shape of Water.

Throughout the many years of the Oscars, I have to admit that the political factors are becoming more and more important and, probably, surpassing the pure cinematic factors. To be clearer, briefly analyzing The Shape of Water is essential.

The United States’ society during the 1960s is a picture with many contradictory colors. The blue color represents the hope of a better future with massive technological and economical progressions.
The yellow color brings up the remnants of racism toward many people of minorities and red provokes the potential threats coming from the intense rivalry against the Soviet Union. With Elisa Espotito, her life is surrounded by the grey color.

Living in a dreary apartment above an old movie theater in Baltimore and working as a regular janitor in a secret government laboratory during the Cold War, Elisa only has one silver lining that lights up her life as a muted woman: her friendship with Giles, a homosexual painter, and Zelda Fuller, her colored co-
worker. Each of them represent a minority that has been suppressed in centuries by the United States’
society.

However, the color of love found Elisa when she meets “the Asset,” an amphibian-humanoid creature
founded near a South American river. In “the Asset”, Elisa sees a silent friend who shares the passion of music, of dancing and some boiled eggs with her. More than that, they are both lonely and crushed by something bigger. If “the Asset” is physically and continuously damaged by Colonel Richard Strickland, a
representative of a “higher power,” then Elisa is emotionally damaged by her co-workers’ daily complaints, who are the representatives of the United States’ society, because of her disability.

In my opinion, this particular picture is reminiscent of what is going on in the United States’ political arena nowadays under Trump’s presidency: the government stepping on the minorities to reach its own purposes. The images of President Trump constantly mocking a woman of disability as well as disdaining a journalist because of her “regular job” did enrage the public a year ago. Even though The Shape of Water had a big chance of becoming a “so-so” movie like some other movies from Guillermo Del Toro
such as Hellboy, these images from the president somehow pulled its own trigger and pushed The Shape of Water to a massive success.

The depiction of the current presidency cannot be perfect without the last suppressed group, which has been focused mostly on by the president himself: the Mexican immigrants. With his Oscar’s
acceptance speech emphasized on his own Mexican origin, let us guess who put the last puzzle piece in the panorama that subtly implies the “political incorrectness” of President Trump? The Academy Award winner: Director Guillermo Del Toro.