Christmas-the season of giving or the season of spending?

            What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you think that Christmas is right around the corner? For many of us, we immediately think of presents, our wish lists, and how much shopping we have left to do. The holidays have always been a time of giving, but how much giving is too much? When does the giving of the Holiday season become more materialistic than generous? The Christmas season is becoming less and less about family or traditions and more about the gifts we get and the money we spend. Crazed shoppers skip the sleep on Thanksgiving to fight off others to save money on the years hottest appliances. People spend hundreds of dollars buying for friends and family, and worry more about the money value of the gift than the meaning behind it. The Holiday season becomes more of a competition for who can give the better present than a celebration of religion, family, and loved ones.  

Now more than ever, with the state of our economy, people should be more frugal with their money. So many people are struggling to make ends meet; yet families spend immense amounts of money buying gifts that put them in debt for months. Despite the downward fall of the economy this year, online spending is anticipated to increase by almost 12% from previous years.  While I agree with trying to keep Christmas and other Holidays the same despite financial difficulties, where do we draw the line between attempting to normalize and senseless spending that will cause more problems later? I think that if people focused more on the joy and spirit of the Holiday season than the materialistic aspect, this time of year would be much more joyful.

http://emol.org/emclub/?q=holidayshoppingguide

Downloading is NOT Stealing

Websites and programs that allow music sharing and downloading tend to be thought of as illegal, but why? Yes, stealing is wrong, but downloading is not stealing. Stealing is considered taking something that no one else can now have. When you download songs, it is still accessible for other people. Consider it in relation to a library or video store. They rent out movies, but do not pay per rental to the director of the movie. In fact, most libraries do not even have a charge for movie rentals as long as you have a library card. This is the same as what the internet does for music. Does that make libraries and movie stores illegal?

In regards to the copyrights, it also proves to show that downloading and sharing is not illegal. The copyrights are there for the purpose of showing ownership, not allowing illegal reproduction. This means copyrighted objects are not to be reproduced or used for a profit. These rules are being followed because there is no profit and it is not being reproduced, but instead it is being shared. It is not being sold, it is not being recreated, so what makes it wrong? Why do you think music sharing networks are considered illegal? All they do is allow a circulation of music, not the thievery of it.

Leave that toy on the shelf!

Recent findings in St. Louis discovered that the popular Zhu Zhu hamster pet toy is unsafe. It contains Antimony, which is known to cause cancer, lung and heart problems. It is found on the hair and nose of the hamster. The toy's maker, Cepia LLC claims that this toy is safe for children and has passed all safety tests required. These toys are the latest craze of the holiday season, and in being so, a company named GoodGuide came into play to test these latest toys. The Ceo of the company, Dara O'Rourke, stated to the Associated Press that they have bought 3 of each of this years 30 most popular toys and tested them numerous times. The results founded that Antimony was on 93 parts per million in the hamster's fur and at 106 parts per million on the hamster's nose. The normal amount should be 60 parts per million.

The question here is, why are these toys even on the shelves? If children are prone to these types of serious cancers and heart issues, then why are they offered for sale, when they are aware that they can potentially cause serious health issues?

Think back to when led was a huge health risk across the globe. Parents are more cautious than ever now when it comes to buying gifts for their kids. Stores even sell led testers so that parents can be more aware of what their children are playing with. So do you think it is right that parents have to be so on edge about buying toys for their children? Should these companies be punished more frequnetly? Is there enough testing going on to begin with? What do you think?

Take a look at this article to read more about the dangerous Zhu Zhu...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_zhu_zhu_pets_safety;_ylt=AjI3wOgrCW4wUlFpL6gIQI_VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJubHRpOXMzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjA2L3VzX3podV96aHVfcGV0c19zYWZldHkEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2dyb3VwY29udGVuZA--

Just stress, or mental health issues?

According to an article I found, one in three college students is depressed and one in four contemplates suicide. These numbers surprised me. Current college students are under so much stress, especially in ivy league schools where there is so much competition. Freshmen come into college and are used to getting straight A's in high school and being in the top of their class. Then they come to college and get C's and start freaking out. It is definitely a shock to suddenly not get the good grades that you're so used to getting.

The student health director at Washington University in St. Louis says that keeping lines of communication open is very important. Parents and teachers need to talk to the students before academic stress turns into a tragedy. Alan Glass, director of Student Health and Counseling at Washington University, thinks this issue could also be tied to 9/11. After those attacks, students became more globally aware. Thinking about the issues facing our country today can be very stressful, especially the current recession. What are your thoughts on this issue? How do you think it can be solved?

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/4198.html

Go Green

Over the past decade people have become aware of the fact that the health of the environment is a major problem. Because the environment is not in a good state, there have been many movements to change the way we live. The Green Movement has gained a lot of steam recently, this has led to increased awareness and also alternative environmentally friendly ways of doing normal things. Most people agree that steps need to be taken to improve the health of the planet, because of this the government and many big businesses have started green programs to try and reduce their negative impact on the environment. There are also many individuals who have changed their habits to live a greener life, mostly through the products they buy. There has also been a movement among colleges and universities to be green. UCLA has dorms with solar-heated water. College of the Atlantic in Maine has been carbon neutral since 2007 and gets over 90 percent of the campus’s lighting from compact fluorescents. Arizona State University has more solar panels than any other school in the United States and they also established a School of Sustainability in 2007. Middlebury College has a biomass gasification plant that reduces carbon emissions by 40 percent, and they aim to be carbon neutral by 2016. Oberlin College has the EcoOlympics, which is a four week competition of environmentally themed contests between the dorms. There are over 110 colleges and universities that have built environmentally friendly or efficient buildings. Because students are so proactive about this issue it has motivated many schools to dramatically change their operations on campus to be more environmentally friendly. There are some drawbacks to going green; it can be extremely expensive especially when constructing an environmentally efficient building. What do you think about this issue? Is going green worth the trouble? Should Merrimack try to become more environmentally friendly? If so, what should they do to accomplish this?

Co-Ed Housing in College Dorms

Co-ed housing in college dormitories has gained more and more popularity within the last fifteen years. It used to be that boys and girls were only allowed to live in separate wings or floors of a dormitory. Today, society has come so far as to let boys and girls live together not only on the same floor, but in the same room! Harvard University, Brown University and Clark University are some of the many colleges that are allowing boys and girls to live in the same room together. The residence life staff here at Merrimack College believes that Merrimack will not see co-ed rooms for a VERY long time, do to our Catholic background. Public Universities however, are more likely to see this type of diversity in its dormitories.

What do you think about this idea of boys and girls living together? For those of you who live in ASH Dormitory, you may already live next to a room full of the opposite sex. Those of you in the Deegans, how do you like the way boys and girls are separated by floor? Do you think co-ed housing is a good idea?

Pro-choice

The argument about abortion is one of the most controversial topics discussed today. At the end of the day, what is the right decision or is there a right decision? In 1973, the famous Roe vs. Wade case established the law that allowed women to get an abortion if they so desired. New laws have established a limited time slot to get an abortion of the first trimester. I believe there is an answer to this question.
Pro-choice is the right decision in this case. Arguments against abortion are very valid. It is a harmful procedure that may prevent a woman from ever having children in the future. It is easy to grasp the "killing a life" concept. For those of you who are religious, we know that it is not accepted by the Catholic church. But give it a rest anti-abortion lobbyists, you will never win.
If you choose to not want to get an abortion for whatever reason, it is your right to not ever get one. But can you make that decision for another woman? As Americans, we have rights to our body and what we choose to do with them. After the first trimester, I agree that it is just too late, but before then, a woman should have a choice.
If a law was passed that made it illegal to have an abortion, besides the inevitable riots and fights that would ensue, only harm would become of it. Just like teens and adults will search out illegal drugs despite the law against it, woman will seek out an illegal abortion. But instead of being in a hospital with sterilized equipment and trained professionals, it will be done in someones basement with whatever they could find in their kitchen. This will not only cause the woman to never be able to give birth to a child indefinitely, but also could lead to death in extreme cases. Is this what we want for America? Do we want adults who are not ready to bare a child to go to these measures, or for a stupid teenage girl who got taken advantage of to jump down a flight of stairs in desperation? That is what will happen in this case, and it is wrong for a woman to be reduced to desperation when she could just go to Planned Parenthood.
The same people who lobby for anti-abortion laws, also lobby for the teaching of abstinence, which everyone knows is a lost cause. People will do whatever they want to, and it is wrong to deny teens the right information they need to be safe.
Overall, we know as Americans that we have a freedom to do as we please with our body, with obvious limitations. While every argument against and for abortion is valid, the fact remains that it would be a very unintelligent decision to put a law against abortion. For those of you who stand by your anti-abortion decision, I admire your choices, but it is time for everyone to realize the real meaning and consequence of that choice.

A Not So Carefree Childhood

Throughout my early childhood my parents rarely left my side for more than 10 minutes. They kissed away every "boo-boo", made sure I was never cold or hungry, and encouraged my developing imagination. What I took for granted that made me the person I am today, is something that thousands of kids each year don't have.

In 2007, the United States Department of Health and Human Services estimated about 794,000 children were victims of abuse or neglect. That the same year approximately 1,760 children ended up dead as a result of child abuse and neglect. What's more is that many abuse and neglect cases are never reported, and many child fatalities are not detailed as resulting from abuse or neglect.

In some cases, maltreatment can be thought of as a cycle. Adults who were abused or neglected as children are likely to become parents who repeat such actions towards there own children. Another factor with a high correlation to abuse and neglect is poverty. Sometimes the parents are not financially able to support their children, making the neglect unintentional. A final key factor related to abuse and neglect is substance abuse. Many cases of neglect and abuse involved primary caregivers who abused drugs and alcohol.

Child abuse and neglect has a strong negative impact on the child's development. It affects their performance in school, their self-esteem and self- confidence, and their ability to form friendships and future relationships.

I'm sure that most, if not all of us, grew up in non-abusive households. How often do you take this for granted? What are your feelings on child maltreatment?

Below are two articles on child maltreatment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280635,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov26/0,4670,BrainInjuredGirl,00.html

Sports and the Economy, Does this seem right?

Athletes nowadays are becoming more and more like celebrities. They end up in newspapers, are in television adds, and sometimes play roles in movies. They also get paid enormous amounts of money, money that a person could only dream of making. These past couple of years, we have also been experiencing the worst economic depression since the Great Depression back in the 1930's. Jobs have been lost, wages have been cut, and more and more families seem to be falling into poverty. Does this seem right?

Very recently Real Madrid, a spanish soccer team, spent a world record $372 million on 3 players, both breaking and setting a new world record for the most amount spent on a single player in the process. They had to take out 2 bank loans in order to complete this transaction and are receiving much disdain from the rest of the soccer world; Gianni Rivera, a soccer legend said "Is soccer still a game or a business?". The New York Yankees have the largest payroll in Major League Baseball, paying over $208 million for all the players, Alex Rodriguez earning the most with $33 million. It is surprising that in the middle of an economic depression that some people can still manage to scramble together such portions of money. So the question remains, what is reasonable? Should these people still be paid this amount of money to hit, kick or throw a ball while we have people giving their lives in foreign countries for less money? How much money becomes too much?

Video Games and Today's Youth

A recent study just came out and said that 97% of American kids play video games. They also said that an astounding 99% of boys play and 94% of girls do. This asks the question…how much is too much? A separate study was also conducted and they concluded that on the weekdays, male gamers play for about 58 minutes while females play for 44 minutes. However, on the weekend the males played for 1 hour and 37 minutes and the females for 1 hour and 4 minutes. Personally, I don’t think that these number are really that bad because if you break them down it’s basically an average of a little over 10 minutes a day on the weekdays and around 40 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. However, these averages take into account those that play very little and those that play for hours a day, so there are obviously those who have a problem with how much they play.
Another problem with video games is the first person shooter games contributing to violence in kids today. Games like Grand Theft Auto pollute the kid’s minds with drugs, prostitutes, alcohol, and killings. There was a study at Indiana University where they tried to gage how much of an effect on emotions violent video games had. Their results were that there was increased activity in the part of the brain that controls emotions in children who played the violent video games. This proves the point that violent video games in fact contribute to the child’s emotions and possibly violent attitude in some ways. So the question in the end is…how much is too much? and what type of games should they be playing?

Culture of Sex

In today’s society there in an incredible emphasis on sex. With influences like music, television, and magazines the idea of sex is becoming less of a taboo. People are becoming more comfortable with the ideas of sex. The most frightening part is that a majority of these people are children. Think back to the past 24 hours. I feel safe in saying that you have experienced at least one moment where sex or sexuality was a prominent reference. These references are becoming less surprising, and as a society we are becoming numb and accepting to the blatant themes of sexuality.
Some may argue that becoming comfortable with the idea of sex is normal and healthy and that a prude culture would be the downfall. Sex in itself is not a bad thing and people should be open to talking about it. It is stating the obvious but sex is necessary for life and everything else that follow. The bible even praises sex in the correct context. The context in which is think about sex is where the controversy arises.
There is a strong counter argument to the stance that sex is not a bad thing. Religious views aside, sex can be a social stigma. It goes back to the old concept of “too much of a good thing.” There is a difference between talking about sex in general, and talking about it on a personal level. If two people are applying for a job and they both have the same qualifications and the interviewer is aware that one of them has a long list of sexual endeavors, that applicant is less likely to get the position. Sex is a social stigma.
The point that it comes down to is sex sells, plain and simple. Commercials for products like toothpaste are advertising with half naked women and sexual innuendos. The main questions are is this culture of sex detrimental?
Here is an article describing how the obsession with sexuality and appearance can be extremely damaging to young women.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/America_s_sex-mad_culture_4777.shtml

Should You Live Until You Die?

Euthanasia can be defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Many people refer to Euthanasia as "assisted suicide" or "mercy killing". Whatever you call it, it brings up a lot of debate and discussion. If your loved one was in crucial pain and their quality of life was deteriorating, what would you want to happen? Some argue that euthanasia is doing the terminally ill a favor by 'putting them out of their misery', or relieving them from extreme pain. Other arguments for Euthanasia claim that it is simply another case of freedom of choice, and on the upside it helps free up loved ones from being weighed down in unnecessary medical funds. Those against Euthanasia argue that assisted suicide devalues human life, and could become a source of heath care cost containment. Those against Euthanasia feel as though human life should be protected and that no one besides God should be able to take your life away from you.
I'm sure you all remember the case of Teri Schiavo which dominated news stations back in 2005. Terri Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a PVS ( persistent vegetative state) for seven years before her husband, Michael Schiavo ultimately won the case and had her feeding tube removed on March 18, 2005. The case involved 14 appeals, and led to involvement by the Florida Legislature, the United States Congress, and George W. Bush himself to try and keep her alive. Schiavo was euthanized by an act of omission which is the intentional causing of death by not providing ordinary means of survival (such as food and water). Schiavo died on March 31, 2005 due to dehydration and starvation.
Some argue that Schiavo was in such a poor state of being that causing her death was doing her a favor. No one should live in a vegetative state for the remainder of their life. Others think that starving someone to death is no different than murder--no matter what their current physical state of being may be. What do you think? If you found your self in a situation where you had to decide whether a loved one dies or lives, what sort of things would be going through your mind? Is Euthanasia moral?




Check out this website for the legality of Euthanasia in the United States:


http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/assisted_suicide_laws.htm

The Good, the Bad, the Immortal

Most people in contemporary society would scoff at the concept of a literal immortality. The idea that we could preserve our bodies and our beings in an everlasting life is a pipe dream, something that isn't conceivable in the realm of science, right? Scientist Ray Kurzweil doesn't think so. In fact, he believes we're on our way to immortality within a matter of twenty years through nanotechnology. Whether or not what Ray says is ludicrous, it does bring up certain ethical dilemmas.

The nature of the universe seems to be degenerative and chaotic. Living beings are no different. We all age, we all die. It is as it is, whether we like it or not. Death, ironically, is a part of life. And our survival instincts compel us to avoid death. This may in part explain why the idea of the eternal has been a part of life for as long as life could think. Dating back to the earliest written records of man, we see immortality spring on to the scene with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Today, the idea of immortality still permeates society. Most people have, in one manner or another, religious belief in the divine that attests to a metaphysical immortality (some sort of afterlife). And then there's the realm of thought itself, that abstract concepts such as freedom transcend reality as an everlasting truth. Even in science we see that, for example, the universe may very well expand on into infinity.

No one would deny that an inner hunger makes the prospect of immortality at least immediately appealing. We see through the many attempts of individuals to find some sort of "fountain of youth" or even people's desires to simply leave their mark in history that a part of us wants to go on even after we're long gone. And let's be honest. Even if you're convinced that immortality in the physical sense is an immoral thing, you can't tell me that you wouldn't want some of the attributes of an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being. Perhaps you'd want control of time and the aging process temporarily (so that you could live as long as you like, and then die when you feel the time is right). Or maybe you'd want some of the other potential benefits of nanotechnology, be it super strength or a higher plane of intellect.

Unfortunately, though, we probably all know from experience that what is desirable is not automatically good. Just as much as I am enraptured by immortality, I am equally terrified by the implications of such a thing. Life, as I see it, is made meaningful by death. It may be all about the journey (life) but if there is no finish line (death) toward which we strive then it is not definably a journey at all. It leads nowhere. Immortal life is not life, it might as well be death because it is devoid of meaning. Not to mention, there are all kinds of problems that would arise with it (how would we control population? how would we stop people from committing immoral actions?).

Ultimately, I think immortality is something better left beyond the reach of science and within the reach of science fiction (and religion, pop culture, and so on and so forth).
What about you? What if we could become immortal? Would that be an inherently good thing? What effect would this have on the way we live (such as local and international laws)? How would we have to redefine what it is to be human, to be alive, to exist even?

Source: Immortality only 20 years away says scientist

The Same Story Continues

We can all say that we are over the fact about racism and inequality in the United States of America. So many things have changed throughout the years. The hate has been broken from both sides, we say. We have an African American President. We have all been open to equal opportunity, we say. We see everything as if it is perfect. Well not everything is okay.

Last month a group of students from Washington University went on a senior trip to Chicago, Illinois. They all went to a nightclub to celebrate. According to the club's dress policy people who wore baggy jeans were not allowed in. So about six African American students were not allowed entry because of the way they were dressed. The rest were 200 white students who were allowed to go in. Two of the students had an idea of exchanging jeans to see if both were allowed entry. One of the students who was white the jeans fitted baggy. He was still allowed entry but the other who was African American was denied his entrance.

This was a two day trip which would culminate in a celebration at the Old Mothers Club. This trip was already planned and the party had already been arranged ahead of time with the nightclub by the student class board, which included two of the African American students who were later denied entry to the club. That really sucks. Nobody would want to go through that especially when you are trying to celebrate your final year at college. I really think that there are some people who really are not over this entire race issue. I do believe that there are some racists out there. It's sad that we still have to go over this same issue over and over again. Why can't we just get over it all? Do you feel this is okay? Was this a matter of policy or race? Put yourself in these young students shoes, should you feel outrage? What can we do to get this to stop? Is it in our control or is this out of our control?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/25/illinois.bar.racism.allegations/index.html

The Real Immigration Complication

The “immigration issue” has long been a point of contention about whether the flow of immigrants to the U.S. should be inhibited. The real issue that can be overlooked is the defective immigration system in our country which some say is doing more harm than good. A recent article by Tyler Moran explains that the “broken” immigration system is having negative effects on people in the workforce-- both immigrants and native-born alike.

Under the current system, employers hire undocumented immigrants who fear deportation at any time. Therefore these immigrants face dangerous working conditions, extremely low wages, or no payment at all but they cannot do anything about it because they do not want to face deportation. They cannot join unions or try to improve their working conditions at all. Is it their own fault for coming to this country? Or is it the faulty immigration system of America?

According to Moran, the majority of corrupt employers do not face consequences for their actions. They are able to make a bigger profit by using unlawful practices. This means that employers who do abide to the law are put at a competitive disadvantage to those who don’t. This also results in authorized workers being subject to the same unsafe working conditions and low wages because it becomes acceptable.

The system as it is promotes abuse of unauthorized workers, lower standards for safe conditions and fair wages for all workers (immigrant and natives), and major disadvantages for employers who run equitable businesses. What is the solution to these problems? If labor and employment laws are modified and most importantly, enforced, will these problems still be so prevalent? It is so easy to blame these problems on immigrants and say that they should be deported. America is a nation of immigrants. Are immigrants really the issue or is it corrupt non-enforcement of current policies?

http://www.alternet.org/immigration/143607/how_our_broken_immigration_system_hurts_both_immigrant_and_native-born_workers/?page=2

Does violence on television affect the behavior of children?

With all the technological advances present today, youths are exposed to more violent images than ever before. The content is the most realistic there has ever been, and are made readily available to children of all ages. Has the media gone too far? Can we no longer simply label it entertainment? Must we begin to render the content dangerous? Or are people overreacting, and simply looking for some scapegoat to explain violence and danger in today's society?

Two professors of communication have voiced their arguments in the book titled "Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Mass Media and Society." James Potter believes that television is harmful to children; while there are other factors that, of course, contribute to the impact, television and the media are the major factors in aggressive and violent behavior in children. Potter's view supports technological determinism, which is a theory that states that technology is the driving force that influences society more than any other factor. Jib Fowles, on the other hand, believes that television is not harmful to children. He adamantly states that correlational data can not prove any positive relationships between the amount of violent television programming watched and the violent behavior exhibited by otherwise vulnerable and impressionable children. Family life (how the children were raised, and the morals and values instilled on them by their parents and peers), predisposed personality traits (if they already have aggressive tendencies, or are cognitively underdeveloped), and unreliable experiments (children are not in their natural environments in laboratories where they are forced to watch television for the experiments) overrule the argument that the media has such a major effect on children. What do you think?

Is There a Need to Escape?

In class we have been discussing the family sphere of the world, what families are, and different types of families. In the latest reading we read an Essay by Margaret Talbot about a family who feels the need to escape from everyday "evils" to fulfill their Christian lifestyle.

The family in the essay "A Mighty Fortress" is about a family who homeschools their children to make them more Christian by singing psalms and reciting the Bible as part of their schooling. They also aren't allowed to watch most television shows, mostly just movies from the 1950's. The family is only friends with other Christians who live life the same way they do. Their oldest children want to grow up to be a missionary and a housewife. And the parents hold a weekly session for other familes to teach them how to live the same way as they do. And they dont believe in dating or any type of attachment until marriage. This type of family who shelters themselves from the outside modern world is seen as radical these days and many people wonder why they chose to live this way.

Talbot explains that the family choses to live this way to keep their values in order. They want their family to stay together. They dont want to feel the pressures of the modern world that wants everyone to fall into the same trap of sin. They want their children to grow up in a safe environment where they keep family, God, and their morals a priority. They believe by exposing their children to the world today that they will just make bad decisions or choices and their lives will just be full of disapointment.

Many other families are choosing to live this way and the number has grown since the 1990's. Why do you think families, especially Christian, feel the need to escape from the modern world? Do you think technology, celebrities, and the media is ruining the hope for radical Christians to live a pure life in today's society? Or do you think these families are just avoiding the modern world because they are afraid to face reality?

Source: Talbot, Margaret. "A Mighty Fortress". February 2007. The New York Times.

A Woman's Nation or Not?

Last April Maria Shriver, First Lady of California, introduced her project, which she partnered with The Center for American Progress for, named “A Woman’s Nation”. This multi-year project includes reporting to uncover the accurate portrayal of women’s role in modern day society along with their actual impact on the world today culturally and economically.
Recently in America it has become not out of the ordinary for the woman to be the breadwinner for a household. Women also now, for the first time in history, represent half of the workers in the work force. Although women have overcome many hurdles in the past decades, Shriver wants to go deeper and uncover the next steps we have to take as a country to let the American Woman become more successful.
Throughout this project Shriver will also team up with Time Magazine for research and reporting. They will also be taking the project on the road hosting many round tables for men and women and town- hall meetings to discuss the shift in women’s current day roles. Interviews between many female icons and leaders will also be included in research.
Another thing that was noted was that the last time a government project similar to this was organized was by Shriver’s uncle, John F. Kennedy. In 1961, almost 50 years ago, he appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as a chair to a commission, to report on the status of women. The article describes how much the world has changed since then and how “A Woman’s Nation” would update, that very outdated report. The update will include what needs to be done economically, culturally and socially to make sure women continue to thrive in the present day and in the future.

Woman’s rights and equality throughout genders have raised many discussions throughout the years. What do you think about woman’s status in society today? Do men and women really have equal opportunities and rights? Do you think Maria Shriver’s report will raise awareness of equality? Is America truly “a woman’s nation”?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-shriver/a-womans-nation_b_187244.html

Vaccinations: A Possible Cause of Autism?

We’ve all seen the commercials telling us how much more likely a child is to develop autism than to become a professional athlete or a singer. Today, one in 161 children develops autism, but do we ever wonder how a disease that was once as rare as one in 10,000 became so prevalent in the United States? Some might claim that genetics is the cause, but genetics is rarely a cause of an epidemic such as this. So what caused this huge growth in the number of autistic children in the U.S.?

No one can deny the vaccinations and immunizations have been a great way to protect people from dangerous diseases such as polio or the measles. Because of vaccinations, diseases that were once dreaded by the entire population are now barely ever contracted by anyone, but vaccinations may have a dark side. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, vaccinations were usually only given to upper and upper-middle classes, because they were the only ones who could afford them. Coincidentally, more cases of autism began to appear. These new cases were mainly confined to the upper and upper-middle classes. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the government improved vaccination rates to 97% of the population. Around this time, autism spread to more of the population… another coincidence? Soon after, the United States decided to administer vaccines to children shortly after their birth to better protect them. It was then reported by many parents that their children were developing normally during the first year and a half of their lifetime and then developing autistic symptoms. Studies have shown that a cause of this could be the high mercury content in shots such as Hepatitis B and MMR. The level of mercury in these vaccinations is more than enough to give an adult mercury poisoning, so who knows what effect this amount of mercury will do to and infant? It just so happens that the symptoms for mercury poisoning are almost identical with symptoms for autism. All of these studies begs the question, are vaccines hurting or helping?

http://www.know-vaccines.org/autism.html

It Takes Heart

It is the leading cause of death among youth athletes. It happens once every three or four days. In 80 percent of those cases the athletes show no symptoms or warning that they could die. This leading cause of death is sudden cardiac arrest. When an athlete goes into cardiac arrest they have only minutes until they face a certain death. Even with urgent treatment, such as, Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation or the use of a defibrillator, only 11 percent of athletes who go into cardiac arrest survive. However, given those statistics only 1/200,000 athletes are likely to go into sudden cardiac arrest.

As an athlete sudden cardiac arrest is something that I may not think about often but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen to me. If I, or someone I know, went into cardiac arrest I would want every resource available to give me a chance to survive. I strongly believe that every middle school, high school and college should be required to have a defibrillator and someone trained to use a defibrillator at every sporting event. Some health care professionals suggest that competitive athletes should be tested for heart disease before being allowed to compete because a majority of the sudden cardiac arrest deaths are due to a genetic disease and could be prevented.

Requiring a defibrillator at sporting events or athletes to be screened for heart disease before competitive play are rather inexpensive and non-invasive measures that could keep more athletes alive. Do you believe that there should be more guidelines set in place to protect athletes and prevent them from possible death?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/05/earlyshow/health/main2650308.shtml

The Cancer Conspiracy

Is there a cure for cancer? No, of course not. If there was a cure for cancer, more than 500,000 Americans would not die of this deadly disease each year. Well, maybe there is a cure. A study came out of the University of Alberta in Canada showing that a drug called dichloroacetate (DCA) killed most, if not all forms of cancer with little to no side effects. Yet another benefit is that it is extremely cheap, costing as little as two dollars per serving because it is not a patentable drug. Why haven’t we heard about it then? Could it be that drug companies won’t make any money by researching the drug, then selling it because it is so cheap? Is it possible that major drug companies are perfectly content with making over 400 billion dollars per year from cancer treatments (radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, etc.)? Don’t think that this is the first time this has ever happened. Big drug companies have swept many potential cures for cancer (natural cures, oxygen therapy, cleansing, etc.) under the rug simply because they make more money by treating the disease rather than curing it. Does anyone else find it funny that we have made such amazing scientific strides in humanity in the last 50 years (space, the internet, computers, etc.), but we have yet to find a cure for cancer? Drug companies aren’t looking to cure the disease; they want to treat it and make it manageable. That’s the way that they would make the most money. It’s a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.

http://www.impactlab.com/2007/01/31/cure-for-cancer-found-but-no-one-is-talking/

http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

If you ever commit a crime, commit it in Nuuk, Greenland...

Law enforcers in the Greenland do things a little different over there. The prison that is located in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk has no wall, fencing or even bars around or within the prison. The prison consists of 60 inmates who have been convicted for murder, rape and burglary. The prisoners are allowed to have jobs that pay about $28,000 a year. $150 of their pay check each week is given to the prison and to pay for room and board. The inmates get to store the rest in their bank accounts and usually some of it is given to their families for support.

The inmates are allowed to leave the prison and visit a local store to buy something, such as a CD or DVD. They can also send emails and play computer games. They can even watch TV in their own room because each room has a television set with cable accessibility. Because of its popularity in Greenland, during the summer the prisoners can even request the use of a gun to go hunting. They can partake in this activity if they are accompanied by an armed guard and also are not drunk…while hunting! Yes, there have been many instances when prisoners have gone to a bar and gotten too drunk to find their way home so they had to call the prison for a ride. When the prison officials are asked why the prisoners don’t flee the premises, they reply that the prisoners don’t want to escape when they have a warm bedroom and a delicious breakfast waiting for them.

After reading this article, I experienced quite the culture shock. Even though, majority of New England states don’t use capital punishment, this prison seems to be a sheer luxury compared to prisons around here. I am all for prisoners having a job in order to pay room and board and support their families, but I do not agree that the prisoners should be able to come and go as they please. They definitely shouldn’t be able to use drugs or guns while being imprisoned, seeing as how that may have been what sentenced them to jail time in the first place.

What do you think? Should the United States adapt to some of these trends that Greenland uses in their prison. Do you think the freedom the prisoners are given actually punishes them and teaches them lessons about the crimes they committed?

Source: Essentials of Sociology: A-Down-to-Earth Approach (Page 158 Cultural Diversity around the World: “What kind of Prison Is This?”)

What is the Modern "White Privilege"?

As a white female being educated in a mainly white community that advertises, yet lacks diversity, what is my privilege? Am I blind to severe racism that exists against people of different backgrounds and skin colors? Is my ignorance bliss? In Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, she explains her belief that whites are conditioned to not “recognize white privilege” (McIntosh). This white privilege is described as “unearned assets” that are expected each day and accumulated with the idea that we are “meant” to remain oblivious about them. According to McIntosh, each day I wake up and act, participate, and take part in many things that a colored person could not just wake up and do. These aspects of white privilege have become less common over time, but some circumstances still exist where racism and fear of diversity put whites at an advantage over people of a different skin color. However, now there are some instances where African Americans are at an advantage over Caucasians. Our country has progressed to a time where racism and prejudice is scarce, but the few conditions where it exists are so intense and uncomfortable that we choose to overlook it as to avoid conflict.

McIntosh continues her investigation of this “white privilege” by outlining some of the “daily effects” of white privilege in her life. She lists 50 conditions under which she act on every day without even having to think twice about (McIntosh). These conditions are also freedoms that African Americans could not wake up and unreservedly have access at the time when McIntosh’s article was written. Some of these effects were simple things like being confident that your neighbors would treat you well or at least “neutral” upon moving into a new neighborhood. This is an example of something that is now universal for the most part. In the majority neighborhoods, African Americans can move in peacefully and get along with their neighbors. Of course, there are exceptions to this statement, but there always will be exceptions. In fact, in some neighborhoods, a white family moving into a home can cause controversy with the neighbors. Many of McIntosh’s listed “daily effects” I have deciphered as untrue and in some cases the opposite has become true with progression.

Daily Effect number 32 is listed as “My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races” (McIntosh). As I read this I immediately labeled this as untrue. Thoughts proving this effect wrong flowed through my head. Ignoring opinions and beliefs of people of other races in unacceptable. No one looks at a person skin color to judge their perspectives and powers in situations. As I began to think about it more, I questioned myself. Is it really that far off? Do all people look past skin color and into the true meaning behind the opinion? Does a racist past still affect the way whites treat the perspectives and powers of people of other races?

While I do believe a time of racist sentiments is behind us, after contemplating McIntosh’s list of daily effects, I am questioning just how much we have progressed. Does our history with racism condition us to hold the same beliefs against people of color? Are racist ideas still held but hidden? Do these “daily effects” still exist in a less prominent way? How does one skin color affect the way a person is judged?


McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege:Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Essay. Independent School Winter 1990. Print.

MIT Taking Student Blogs to the Nth Degree

Dozens of colleges are embracing student blogs on their Web sites, seeing them as a powerful admissions tool. Check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/education/02blogs.html

The F-Word

No, not the unprintable f-word, but the dreaded one: feminism. What is feminism really? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines feminism as “the movement for the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Feminism is a lens, a way to witness social injustices happening in our society, and commit oneself to correcting them by working on political solutions. The bottom line, feminism is about gender issues. But, is feminism a movement of the past? Why are women today distancing themselves from feminism?

Although nearly all women agree with most feminist goals and principals, very few would call themselves a feminist. Individuals today, especially the younger generation, have problems with the title. However, few have issues with the fundamental values of feminism. So, why do young adults today not desire to be titled a feminist? Is it because one might be associated with being a lesbian or another social stereotype?

I myself have noticed that several young women nowadays act differently around men than they habitually do. Take my best friend for example, when she is around her boyfriend she acts almost like a feeble toddler. She has him do everything: carry her groceries, hook-up her internet, grab her a glass of water. She then proceeds to appear completely helpless, when in reality I know she is not. However, my friend is not the only female who behaves this way around men. I preformed a little research and discovered that our brain functions differently when we are in love.

http://www.cyberparent.com/love/love-being-in-love-1.htm

However, what I really want to know is where has the revolution gone? The first battle for basic rights of citizenship was discussed in a piece I recently read and discussed in class, “Women’s Right to Vote” by Susan B. Anthony. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many other feminists of the 19th century wrote stimulating pieces of literature focusing on feminism. However, today there is very little written in professional literature on the subject, for our present society is not built on revolution and revolt.

Why are women still being treated unequally? The female payroll is still not equivalent to the male, and I often feel men consider women to be inferior to them. A male friend of mine is constantly making anti-feminist jokes, such as “why are women’s feet shorter than men’s” or “why don’t women wear watches?” Will women ever be held on the same social status as men? Will women ever prove their equality, or will they continue to take this injustice and persist in acting inferior around men like my best friend?

The Black Panthers

The Black Panthers was formed in 1966, soon after the assassination of Malcom X. They fought for black liberation. "The Ten Point Plan was their manifesto for the end to African - American oppression." They wanted the Americans to treat all other people of color equally. The Ten Point Plan was written to reach out to white people and people of color. The Plan pointed out that Caucasians are not giving the African - American enough rights like getting full employment, housing, free healthcare, and more.

I do not approve of their action because nobody should treat others differently because of their race. I believe they were fighting for their rights, but I disagree on how they killed and abused the Americans who were against the African - Americans.

Would you guys agree or disagree with The Black Panthers decision?

College and Alcohol

My R.A put up a new bulletin board this past week with all the facts about college issues concerning alcohol. At first I walked by and thought nothing of it. However, when my roommates and I stopped to read what was written on this bulletin board we were quite shocked. One of the facts written was that in the last year, 2.1 million people between the ages of 18 and 24 have driven drunk. 2.1 million! Was I shocked that people drink and drive? No, but I never thought that this many were. I cannot comprehend that people will go out to drink and then drive. My main concern after reading this was about a girl who died in my city after getting hit by a drunk driver. Many people between the ages of 18 and 24 do not go out to have one drink then go home. Lets be honest that they usually go out to get drunk with friends. It concerns me that this many drivers are out on the road every year. That is almost 6,000 drivers on the road drunk every night. Throughout high school I worked at a Youth Services job where I helped speak about the issues concerning underage drinking and even I was astonished by this number. Another fact on this board said that about 1700 students between the same ages die of accidental excessive drinking every year. Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t drink. I’m just alarmed by these numbers. I think we should all be a little startled by this. Both of these facts hit home, after my friends sister died of excessive drinking. We can move on and pretend these numbers don’t matter and complain about having to take online alcohol tests, which I agree did stink, but in reality it really does matter in the end. I for one don’t want to see any of my friends die.

*Haley Morris

Plastic Surgery: Too Complicated an Issue to Just Pick A Side

According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, over 10 million plastic surgery procedures were conducted in 2008; women had over 92% of them. “Americans spent almost $11.8 billion on cosmetic procedures,” such as breast augmentation, liposuction, eyelid surgery, abdominoplasty, breast reduction and more (American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery). This information is all very astounding and in some ways sad. However, it is our choice as women how we want to portray ourselves. I feel sorry for people who feel they need to alter their bodies in order to feel womanly and beautiful. Everyone has flaws, but not everyone is willing to go out and spend a few thousand dollars to fix them. I really wish that we could all just learn to feel comfortable in our own skin and appreciate our bodies for what they are, but if someone is willing to work hard and save for these procedures, then good for them. If they feel getting breast implants will better their quality of life and make them more confident, then surgery might be a good decision for them.
I can completely understand why people object to the surgeries: yes, they are dangerous and there are big risks involved…but if that is the way you feel about it then don’t get plastic surgery! What many people don’t realize is that a lot of the time people aren’t getting these breast implants and other surgeries to impress others or for the general population to make commentary on…they are doing it for themselves. People in today’s society love to pass judgment on people who have had work done. They will criticize them and say that they are furthering the issue of “gender roles” and just going along with what the “media” tells us we should look like. However, I am willing to bet that these critics wouldn’t be saying that about the breast cancer patient who has had a mastectomy. If she decides to have her breasts restored to feel womanly again, I bet you would think twice before criticizing her decision to have plastic surgery. This topic is just way too complicated to pick a side and stick firmly to it. Believe me, if one day I have a daughter and she asks to get a breast augmentation or any other work done, I will be the first person to tell her she is crazy for even asking. However, if she saved up her own money and went and had them done, yes I would be concerned, but I would support her decision.
I am not asking if you are for or against plastic surgery, I’m just asking to make some realizations. We can’t let society dictate what we should and should not do. As Faludi says in “Blame It On Feminism”, we can’t allow the public to “push women back into their ‘acceptable’ roles,” as Barbies and love objects (Faludi 45). No one should choose to get implants because that’s what you think society wants you to look like…get them for the right reasons.
We should feel beautiful in our own skin, set an example and stop fitting into this “gender role.” But if we do decide to alter our bodies, it should be because we are women, we have the freedom and right to do it, and we feel it will better our lives in some way.
With that being said, will the decisions we make today about plastic surgery impact the “social norms” of the future? Is plastic surgery going to become so common that all we see are artificial women? Will plastic surgery eventually become obsolete? Where do the notions that plastic surgery is either good/bad come from?



"Media - Statistics The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery." The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: The Mark of Distinction in Cosmetic Plastic Surgery® The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Web. 01 Oct. 2009. http://www.surgery.org/media/statistics.

Faludi, Susan. "Blame It On Feminism." 1991. Backlash. New York: Pearson Custom, 2009. 45. Print.

Swine Flu

"OMG IT'S SWINE!" Ya we all hear about it. We're all scared for it. The infamous H1N1. But seriously, how much worse is it than the seasonal flu? Every year, about 36,000 people die from the seasonal flu. But only 426 people have died from a confirmed case of the swine flu. So why are we freaking out?

The symptoms of H1N1 are:

Fever above 100.4 °F

Cough

Sore throat

Headache

Chills

Muscle aches

Diarrhea

Vomiting

Those seem awfully familiar. That's becuase those are the exact symptoms of the regular seasonal flu. And the treatment for the swine flu? When I researched this, it stated that most people will get over the swine flu with no treatment at all. The only time anyone would have to worry is if they have other complications that will affect their chances against fighting the flu. So I wonder, why are we making such a big deal out of the swine flu? Yes, it's a pandemic, but the more we freak out, the more society freaks out. Everyone is talking about the swine flu. Everybody knows about it. And we are more scared about getting H1N1 then we are the regular flu. And the regular flu makes us just as sick. Do you think we play up the swine flu a bit much?And if we do, do we have reason for it? Should we really be scared about the consequences of H1N1? And what about the vaccine? The government is releasing a vaccine this fall for the H1N1 virus. This vaccine is different from the seasonal flu vaccine but is expected to be given out around the same time. Is it risky to be taking both vaccines? Especially us, who are living in close dorm rooms, should we recieve the vaccine?

And one more issue that has caused lots of rumors. What will Merrimack do when the swine flu breaks out? Will those people be sent home? Will H1N1 hit us like a bomb? There are so many "what ifs" and so many questions. And most of them won't be answered until something actually happens. But we all worry. Everyone is concerned about getting sick. But there is not much we can do right now other than washing our hands and stay away from those who are sick. What do you think about this issue? What should Merrimack do?

Naked Truth

Plastic surgery, weight loss diets, eating disorders, cosmetics, exercise videos, exercise equipment, posh shopping. Those are just a few things that are becoming more prevalent amongst women in the United States. In the present time, women are being portrayed in the media as thin, beautiful, sexy, and essentially, perfect. Every woman wants that perfect body and the media plays a large role in revealing exactly what this perfection is supposed to be.
Think about the messages that MTV, video games, and advertisements are exemplifying. The media depicts women as sexual objects and in standpoint of powerlessness. On MTV, women are always climbing on or around men and the women are usually half-dressed, if that, while the men are usually fully clothed. Did you know that most videos on MTV are male-directed? The physical image that MTV creates is the ideal woman. This creates body image issues amongst young women. This is where the increase in weight loss regimens, eating disorders, and cosmetic surgery comes from.
Also, video games typically display women in tight clothing, lots of makeup, and as having unrealistic bodies. For example, Grand Theft Auto is a prime example. Prostitutes walk the streets with large breasts and revealing clothing. The player can abuse the prostitute and exchange money for sex. This game is objectifying women to the utmost extent and illustrating to its viewers that this is an accepted notion.
Advertisements are just the same as the rest of the negative portrayals in the media. Women are either portrayed as sexual figures (such as in bikinis, lingerie, etc) or as housewives (subservient to men); they are never portrayed as powerful. Essentially, these ads demonstrate what the ideal woman is supposed to be like. While the media is allowed their freedom, why do they think this message is acceptable? Is this increasing the (negative) problem we seem to already have with gender stereotypes?

Death Penalty in the US: Is it right?

The death penalty is a very controversial topic. Out of only 60 countries today that still approve of the death penalty, the United States is one. 35 states have the death penalty and only 15 states do not. There are five different ways the states and US government uses to kill someone: Lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad. Lethal injection is the most popular method of the five and only two persons were hanged and fired upon.

The cost of the death penalty is outrageous. The cost to kill someone is actually more than keeping someone alive. In California it costs $114 more per year to kill them than to keep them in prison for life. This is a very high price to pay considering California hasn't used the death penalty last year or this year.

The youngest person ever to die was a young man of 20 years. Do you think that maybe he wanted to die? Maybe the US should take away the death penalty because a young man like that won't have to take the consequences for his actions. He doesn't want to spend years in prison. He is probably happy he is going to die because he won't have to survive the guilt within him. The death penalty might be helping those who are killed.

What do you think? Is it worth the cost? Should we kill murderers or lock them up for life?
There are currently 1174 people killed under the death penalty and more to come. Should we waste our money to kill a person when just locking them up is cheaper? Should the United States get rid of the death penalty? Read the facts and decide.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf