People love watching sporting events. It brings people together cheering for their team. Football has been one of the favorite sporting events to attend. Football has been known as a "man's game" and hard hitting, which is what the fans want to see. The only problem is that in the past few weeks the NFL has tried to take out the big hits of the game. To be exact the NFL wants to do away with helmet to helmet contact. The new research done around the league regarding head injuries and concussions links to helmet to helmet contact. I can understand why the NFL wants to change this way of tackeling, but it is a part of the game. Big hits happen and as fans that is exactly what we all want to see. The league has started to fine players now for helmet to helmet contact. Two weeks ago the middle linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers, James Harrison, got fined $75,000 for two helmet to helmet hits that happened in his last game. This is a lot of money to be fined for doing your job, which for James Harrison is to tackel the other team.
The league has its concerns for the safety of the players and I understand that, but every NFL player knows the dangers of the game before stepping on the field. Football is a contact sport and taking big hits out of the game will take awhile. Big hits have been apart of football for years, I can remember growing up playing football in grade school. Our coaches would tell us that when you tackle some one, that you want to hit them hard and hurt them. Well now everything that has been taught to kids is being lost in the game. James Harrison actually told his head coach that he is going to retire from the NFL because "I was playing the game the way I have always been taught how, I can't play any other way."
There is were the problem lies, coaching, if coaches teach the proper technique to tackling then these injuries will be less severe. Big hits in football are going to happen there is no way to stop it. When two big fast athletes are running full speed at eachother they only have a fraction of a second to make up their mind. How can we exspect these men flying around the field to not hit helmet to helmet. Big hits are part of football taking it out of the game is like taking fighting out of hockey or tobacco out of baseball, which they are trying to do.
Kemer Quirk
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Old School Must Give Way
As we as a people move forward technological advancements will continue to occur, more in-depth research studies will be done to better understand our world, and ideas and theories that led the past will fall aside to new truths. This has always been true and now more than ever with the NFL changing to be less violent. But one thing that needs to catch up is thoughts on bullying and the mentality of people.
Old school thought would tell you that bullying is just a part of life that everyone must go through it, it makes you stronger as a person. And I being someone who once shared these beliefs and now am trying to change can not argue against those thoughts. Bullying has and probably will always be a part of the human experience and I am stronger for what I dealt with. But while that may be true it shouldn’t be the way we see things or accept things to be. For every person that shrugs of what someone says to them as if it was nothing another person is hit by it and takes it to heart. And that person more so now than ever may not be able to deal with it and fall into depression or do something drastic to end their pain or fear. Bullies have always been good at using what advantage they have over people to hurt them and now with the internet we are finding that the advantage of facebook and myspace that bullies are using can be devastating. Facebook has become as much a part of people lives as the actual interaction that they have with people and to some more important because it allows for them to be away from bullies at school and talk with their friends. But ow for some it has become a place for bullies to ridicule and make fun of more so than when a adult at school maybe around. Youtube has become a place to air embarrassment for someone for the world to see. Kids now post fights on the internet as much as they post funny clips. Last year the video of the seven girls who beat on one girl for dating one of their ex made headlines this year the video that brought abot suicide by a gay student at Rutgers is making headlines. Infact, four more gay teens killed themselves that week for being made fun of. All of these things stated are things you can not argue against. But that doesn’t mean we should accept them.
We need to put restrictions or avenues in place to protect people on the internet like we at least try with no tolerance laws in school. And stop telling kids to suck it up or be a man, because what if this kid can’t suck it up and does something drastic it would be because we as a society just didn’t care enough to help.
Andrew Boyce
Friday, October 22, 2010
Abortion: Why it should be made illegal in the U.S.
Over 49.5 million people in the United States have been killed through abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion is an extremely controversial issue; some people think it is wrong, others see no problem in it. Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception, in other words it is the ending of a pregnancy. Although it is a way out of an unwanted pregnancy, it is killing an undeveloped embryo or fetus and that is where the controversy comes into play.
There are two sides to the issue. Supporters of abortion believe that the embryo or fetus is not a living person; therefore the government has no right to take away the option of abortion. “Pro-Choice “ believe that the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and she can do whatever she wants to it. Many supporters of abortion also use the argument of rape. The fact is, less than 3% of women get an abortion after a rape in the U.S. From the words of a woman who is the product of a rape, “my life is not worth any less than yours because of the crime of my father.”
People who oppose abortion believe that the embryo or fetus is a living person that has the right to have his/her life protected by the government. “Pro-life” believes in a voice for the unborn. These supporters will argue that the fetus is a living person; life starts at conception. Although this cannot be proved, there are other facts that attribute to this thought. The minute conception happens, all human chromosomes are present and unique. A fetus has its own personal DNA, not its mother’s. The heart will begin to beat just 22 days after conception, about 3 weeks. At 6 weeks, the fetus is a barely the size of a kidney bean yet brain waves are still being recorded and reflexes are becoming present. All of the parts necessary to feel pain are formed by week 12, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.
Post abortion complications can be an issue for women, many of them not realizing all of the risks involved. Physical problems resulting from the procedure can include hemorrhage, infection, sterility, cervical and ovarian cancer, and even death. The procedure itself can be extremely painful. Aside from the physical side affects, there are also psychological consequences from having an abortion. Depression, sleep disturbance, and mental trauma may occur a few hours after the procedure, or even years.
The bottom line is that pregnancy is 100% preventable. Teenagers receive 19% of abortions in the U.S, and over 52% of the women who obtain abortions are under the age of 25. Abstinence is not forced upon anyone, but contraceptives still greatly reduced the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion should be illegal not only because it is potentially harmful to the mother’s health and taking the life away from a human that has no voice, but can be prevented through responsible actions that people should be doing in the first place.
By: Katherine Anne Gibson
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html
An issue that has been on my mind for the past few weeks is that of government control. I would not consider myself anti-government, extremist, or even radically political; however, something about the federal government investing millions, if not billions of dollars into regulating aspects of our lives that they should have no say in makes me really uncomfortable.
Recently I have seen a number of documentaries that have really sparked my discomfort with government control. Issues such as illegal steroid use, marijuana use, and even seat belt regulations have struck a chord with me. My point is not that steroids are the way to enhance your strength, going throughout your day spaced out is ok, and even seat belts do not save lives. My point is that these are all issues of personal choice that do not directly put society around us in danger. For instance, I watched a documentary called "Bigger, Faster, Stronger: the story of America" and the basis of this documentary was where is all the research and evidence that anabolic steroids actually do what the media and 'social fear' tells us it does? After months of research, interviews, and experimenting the host discovered that long-term studies have never been done on anabolic steroids, no such official documentation exists to support things such as cancer, insanity, and heart disease. So the question is are they illegal because of fact or because of fear, hype, myth, etc? I say all this to say that the Congress spent more days in session and more money investigating steroids in major league baseball than they did deciding whether or not we should go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's. Whether or not studies come to show the harm anabolic steroids does to one's body, my question is should the government be allowed to tell you what to do with your own body when it affects only yourself?
Another topic that interests me is that amount of money spent on marijuana use in the United States. Personally I am not a smoker, it's never done much for me, but where is the facts and research of the harm it does to users? Cigarette studies could probably fill the University library with facts of what cigarettes do to our bodies and the bodies of others, yet I have never been convinced of specific facts to the long term harm of marijuana to the user and those around them and look which of the two products are illegal. I believe this is just another example of the government controlling that which they fear. A documentary I watched called "Drug Wars" gave the statistic that in Amsterdam, an area known for its lax marijuana regulation, drug use beyond marijuana such as cocaine, heroin, etc. is almost 65% less than that of other first world countries such as the U.S. and Britain. So why does our government spend billions of dollars to imprison marijuana related offenders, track marijuana trade, and other anti-marijuana related activities?
Lastly, I know this is an extremely controversial point, but the whole seat belt thing kinda makes me uncomfortable. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and we all 'should' wear them, but still isn't wearing a seat belt a choice we should make as a free thinking individual and not out of fear of our government? I realize all three of my issues are extremely debatable and I encourage feedback. I'm just trying to relate the question and concepts that have been going through my head the past few week. Perhaps we should all take a deeper look into what the law says we cannot do and the basis for that law; I bet in many cases we would all be shocked to see the lack of basis for many laws.
Jeff C.
Recently I have seen a number of documentaries that have really sparked my discomfort with government control. Issues such as illegal steroid use, marijuana use, and even seat belt regulations have struck a chord with me. My point is not that steroids are the way to enhance your strength, going throughout your day spaced out is ok, and even seat belts do not save lives. My point is that these are all issues of personal choice that do not directly put society around us in danger. For instance, I watched a documentary called "Bigger, Faster, Stronger: the story of America" and the basis of this documentary was where is all the research and evidence that anabolic steroids actually do what the media and 'social fear' tells us it does? After months of research, interviews, and experimenting the host discovered that long-term studies have never been done on anabolic steroids, no such official documentation exists to support things such as cancer, insanity, and heart disease. So the question is are they illegal because of fact or because of fear, hype, myth, etc? I say all this to say that the Congress spent more days in session and more money investigating steroids in major league baseball than they did deciding whether or not we should go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000's. Whether or not studies come to show the harm anabolic steroids does to one's body, my question is should the government be allowed to tell you what to do with your own body when it affects only yourself?
Another topic that interests me is that amount of money spent on marijuana use in the United States. Personally I am not a smoker, it's never done much for me, but where is the facts and research of the harm it does to users? Cigarette studies could probably fill the University library with facts of what cigarettes do to our bodies and the bodies of others, yet I have never been convinced of specific facts to the long term harm of marijuana to the user and those around them and look which of the two products are illegal. I believe this is just another example of the government controlling that which they fear. A documentary I watched called "Drug Wars" gave the statistic that in Amsterdam, an area known for its lax marijuana regulation, drug use beyond marijuana such as cocaine, heroin, etc. is almost 65% less than that of other first world countries such as the U.S. and Britain. So why does our government spend billions of dollars to imprison marijuana related offenders, track marijuana trade, and other anti-marijuana related activities?
Lastly, I know this is an extremely controversial point, but the whole seat belt thing kinda makes me uncomfortable. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and we all 'should' wear them, but still isn't wearing a seat belt a choice we should make as a free thinking individual and not out of fear of our government? I realize all three of my issues are extremely debatable and I encourage feedback. I'm just trying to relate the question and concepts that have been going through my head the past few week. Perhaps we should all take a deeper look into what the law says we cannot do and the basis for that law; I bet in many cases we would all be shocked to see the lack of basis for many laws.
Jeff C.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
True Beauty: Are Pageants Helpful?
Beauty pageants. Yes, we have all seen them, heard of them, or read of them at some point or another. Hundreds of females—and even some males—of all ages compete in them every year. But what are these contests doing to help their contestants?
Before I begin, let me state that I have participated in a couple of school pageants in the past, and quite enjoyed getting all “dolled up” to do so. I have many friends that have done and still take part in pageants all over the state and they do quite well in them. Many do not have to pay for their college education because of the numerous scholarships they have won throughout the years. These girls worked hard at succeeding, just like most students do when applying for a scholarship. The pageants these friends of mine partake in require “beauty,” but more importantly, they are heavily judged on charisma, talent, strong leadership ability, and a charitable platform. These girls not only represent their platform on pageant night, but throughout the year, raising awareness and doing various fundraisers for their particular charity. Several girls I know that are involved in pageants are pursuing degrees in nursing or business, or going on to pursue a Ph.D. in their field. What I am saying is most pageant girls are not the stereotypical Barbie-Doll-pageant-girl. They have brains and, for many of them, pageants give them confidence to use their brains, plus a chance to win a crown in the process.
Now, the beauty “pageants” I described above do not pose as big of a threat to women around the world as the beauty “contests”. These “contests” present a harmful image to impressionable young girls. Instead of requiring a particular talent or platform from their participants, and in some cases, money and/or a modeling contract, based solely off of how they look in a swimsuit and evening gown. Take Miss America versus Miss USA, for example. Miss America is a pageant that encourages the continuing education of its contestants. Miss America’s website reads, “Developed by the Miss America Organization, the Miss America program exists to provide personal and professional opportunities for young women to promote their voices in culture, politics and the community… The Miss America Organization is the leading provider of scholarships for young women in the world.” However, the Miss USA pageant does not. According to the Official Miss Universe website, “In 1902 Catalina Swimsuits founded Miss USA and Miss Universe in Long Beach, California as a product promotion.” A product promotion of swimsuits still exists in this day and age? This era when women are both CEOs and housewives? What if we changed our perception of beauty like women before fought to change the perception of what a woman can, can’t, or should do?
According to the Love Your Body Foundation, a pageant for women of all ages, sizes, and ethnicities, beauty contests “…uphold certain beauty standards that are dangerous and offensive, they pit women against each other as enemies competing to achieve impossible perfection and win male approval.” The message many of these contests are sending to our youth is, “That’s okay. You don’t really need a brain. You just need to be a size two and people will think you’re beautiful.” America claims to be changing, becoming more accepting and diverse. If so, why don’t we change this ancient view of what beauty is? America needs a renovation of the beauty contests, if not the termination of them altogether. Let’s redefine beauty in women as intelligence, perseverance, confidence, and optimism…which may still include “world peace”.
Anna Laura Parten
Before I begin, let me state that I have participated in a couple of school pageants in the past, and quite enjoyed getting all “dolled up” to do so. I have many friends that have done and still take part in pageants all over the state and they do quite well in them. Many do not have to pay for their college education because of the numerous scholarships they have won throughout the years. These girls worked hard at succeeding, just like most students do when applying for a scholarship. The pageants these friends of mine partake in require “beauty,” but more importantly, they are heavily judged on charisma, talent, strong leadership ability, and a charitable platform. These girls not only represent their platform on pageant night, but throughout the year, raising awareness and doing various fundraisers for their particular charity. Several girls I know that are involved in pageants are pursuing degrees in nursing or business, or going on to pursue a Ph.D. in their field. What I am saying is most pageant girls are not the stereotypical Barbie-Doll-pageant-girl. They have brains and, for many of them, pageants give them confidence to use their brains, plus a chance to win a crown in the process.
Now, the beauty “pageants” I described above do not pose as big of a threat to women around the world as the beauty “contests”. These “contests” present a harmful image to impressionable young girls. Instead of requiring a particular talent or platform from their participants, and in some cases, money and/or a modeling contract, based solely off of how they look in a swimsuit and evening gown. Take Miss America versus Miss USA, for example. Miss America is a pageant that encourages the continuing education of its contestants. Miss America’s website reads, “Developed by the Miss America Organization, the Miss America program exists to provide personal and professional opportunities for young women to promote their voices in culture, politics and the community… The Miss America Organization is the leading provider of scholarships for young women in the world.” However, the Miss USA pageant does not. According to the Official Miss Universe website, “In 1902 Catalina Swimsuits founded Miss USA and Miss Universe in Long Beach, California as a product promotion.” A product promotion of swimsuits still exists in this day and age? This era when women are both CEOs and housewives? What if we changed our perception of beauty like women before fought to change the perception of what a woman can, can’t, or should do?
According to the Love Your Body Foundation, a pageant for women of all ages, sizes, and ethnicities, beauty contests “…uphold certain beauty standards that are dangerous and offensive, they pit women against each other as enemies competing to achieve impossible perfection and win male approval.” The message many of these contests are sending to our youth is, “That’s okay. You don’t really need a brain. You just need to be a size two and people will think you’re beautiful.” America claims to be changing, becoming more accepting and diverse. If so, why don’t we change this ancient view of what beauty is? America needs a renovation of the beauty contests, if not the termination of them altogether. Let’s redefine beauty in women as intelligence, perseverance, confidence, and optimism…which may still include “world peace”.
Anna Laura Parten
Do Not Resuscitate Orders on Medical Records
According to U.S. Legal Definitions, a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate Order) is "an advanced directive that is to be followed when a person's heart or breathing stops and they are unable to communicate their wishes to refuse treatment that could allow them to die." Basically this means that a competent adult or their advocate can issue an order in their medical records that if they stop breathing or their heart stops they are not to be resuscitated through the use of CPR or a difibrulator. As of late, it has become common practice to add a DNR to medical records, especially in the case of the terminally ill or the elderly. It is my belief that instituting DNR orders is a sound medical practice and a wise measure to take for those who are older or terminally ill.
Having a DNR order on the medical records belonging to you or a loved one is a great idea. It definitely helps to reduce stress during the time of a hospital visit. Rather than having to decide on the spot whether or not to resuscitate your loved one, the decision has already been placed by them and you have stronger peace of mind in a stressful situation. Many times, initiating "advanced measures" to save someone (ie CPR) actually reduces their quality of life and causes them to live in a vegetative state. Moreover, most terminally ill patients choose to institute DNRs because they have already been through so much and have decided to accept their fate. People may argue about the morality of this issue, however many religions actually support DNRs because of this. The DNR is an order only against resuscitation, so it is not the highly controversial "assisted suicide." The patient is not killing themselves, rather they are accepting fate and choosing to not be saved at the risk of a less satisfying existence. They are not initiating their death; rather they are refusing to be saved. Many times the use of CPR or a difibrulator can actually harm the patient, causing cracked ribs among other injuries.
The bottom line is that initiating these orders can help you carry out yours or your loved one's wishes if the need arises. We never know when the unexpected will happen in life, and it saves much time and stress to be as prepared as you can possibly be for the time. Whether or not to initiate a DNR is a personal choice; one that should be made before making it to the hospital bed. Having this decision made will certainly give you room to breathe.
Beki Martin
Having a DNR order on the medical records belonging to you or a loved one is a great idea. It definitely helps to reduce stress during the time of a hospital visit. Rather than having to decide on the spot whether or not to resuscitate your loved one, the decision has already been placed by them and you have stronger peace of mind in a stressful situation. Many times, initiating "advanced measures" to save someone (ie CPR) actually reduces their quality of life and causes them to live in a vegetative state. Moreover, most terminally ill patients choose to institute DNRs because they have already been through so much and have decided to accept their fate. People may argue about the morality of this issue, however many religions actually support DNRs because of this. The DNR is an order only against resuscitation, so it is not the highly controversial "assisted suicide." The patient is not killing themselves, rather they are accepting fate and choosing to not be saved at the risk of a less satisfying existence. They are not initiating their death; rather they are refusing to be saved. Many times the use of CPR or a difibrulator can actually harm the patient, causing cracked ribs among other injuries.
The bottom line is that initiating these orders can help you carry out yours or your loved one's wishes if the need arises. We never know when the unexpected will happen in life, and it saves much time and stress to be as prepared as you can possibly be for the time. Whether or not to initiate a DNR is a personal choice; one that should be made before making it to the hospital bed. Having this decision made will certainly give you room to breathe.
Beki Martin
Monday, October 18, 2010
Global Warming
Many people today question the myth of Global warming. Often because they feel it does not affect them, plus who cares if it’s a little warmer. Well it is not a myth and it will affect us eventually. Granted the effects of global warming may not necessarily cause the world to end and the economy to crash in your life time, but it will in no doubt affect us and eventually cripple our economy if measures are not taken to prevent this.
The United States of America vs. Kenya is up first. The United States consumes on an annual basses of 7794.8 killogrammes of oil equivilant per capita, Kenya consumes 481.2 kgoe. annually. Why is this happening the easiest answer Kenya’s main source of energy come from hydroelectric stations located along the Tana River, and the Turkwell George Damn. The United States Primary source of energy comes from 40% petroleum, 23% from coal, and 22% natural gas. That’s enough information to show United States is doing in conserving our natural resources and how depleting those resources can hurt our economy. Another way is to look at the main source of income for the two. Kenya’s main source of income comes from tourism, 63% of their GDP ruled by showing people their culture and homes. The United States’ has a Capitalist Mixed economy driven by the mass production of their natural resources. What does this mean for the future of America that is burning up their natural resources so fast they can’t blink? The United States will have to change, or endure a long hard fall to the bottom.
North Korea is a Country that has already taken that last step in 1990 in the “Arduous March” killed 300,000 to 800,000 per year due to famine and mal nutrition. The major cause for the famine is the breakup of allied communist states, as well as economic and resources mismanagement. By 2006 North Korea made its way back to only 37% of their children being chronically malnourished. In Korea’s defense they only consume 894.1 kgoe annually, compared to Singapore 5158.7 kgoe annually. The reasoning for that Korea consumes less is because Korea has already felt the shock of losing their resources and trying to recover, where as Singapore is still a growing country that has not
All of the technology and all of the money in the world will not change a thing if we do not change people. The United States is one of the worst in the consumption of natural resources. The American dream has grown from a white picket fence, family, in a safe neighborhood to keeping up with the Jones’. The problem will continue until you can get the people to stop excessive use of natural resources. It does no good for my grandma to boil her curlers to save money, while an actor spends his day cruising around in his private helicopter or yacht. The change that needs to be made is with people. We as people created our economies to survive off mass production and buying in quantities, but the time has come for us to adapt once again and save ourselves from our own monster.
Brock Davidson
The United States of America vs. Kenya is up first. The United States consumes on an annual basses of 7794.8 killogrammes of oil equivilant per capita, Kenya consumes 481.2 kgoe. annually. Why is this happening the easiest answer Kenya’s main source of energy come from hydroelectric stations located along the Tana River, and the Turkwell George Damn. The United States Primary source of energy comes from 40% petroleum, 23% from coal, and 22% natural gas. That’s enough information to show United States is doing in conserving our natural resources and how depleting those resources can hurt our economy. Another way is to look at the main source of income for the two. Kenya’s main source of income comes from tourism, 63% of their GDP ruled by showing people their culture and homes. The United States’ has a Capitalist Mixed economy driven by the mass production of their natural resources. What does this mean for the future of America that is burning up their natural resources so fast they can’t blink? The United States will have to change, or endure a long hard fall to the bottom.
North Korea is a Country that has already taken that last step in 1990 in the “Arduous March” killed 300,000 to 800,000 per year due to famine and mal nutrition. The major cause for the famine is the breakup of allied communist states, as well as economic and resources mismanagement. By 2006 North Korea made its way back to only 37% of their children being chronically malnourished. In Korea’s defense they only consume 894.1 kgoe annually, compared to Singapore 5158.7 kgoe annually. The reasoning for that Korea consumes less is because Korea has already felt the shock of losing their resources and trying to recover, where as Singapore is still a growing country that has not
All of the technology and all of the money in the world will not change a thing if we do not change people. The United States is one of the worst in the consumption of natural resources. The American dream has grown from a white picket fence, family, in a safe neighborhood to keeping up with the Jones’. The problem will continue until you can get the people to stop excessive use of natural resources. It does no good for my grandma to boil her curlers to save money, while an actor spends his day cruising around in his private helicopter or yacht. The change that needs to be made is with people. We as people created our economies to survive off mass production and buying in quantities, but the time has come for us to adapt once again and save ourselves from our own monster.
Brock Davidson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)