According to my classmate, Rebecca Weiser’s, post about the swine flu outbreak, I completely and 100% agree with her opinion. I too perceive that we, as a nation and even we as a combined mass of the world, blew it “out of proportion.”
Rebecca also mentions in her post that, “more people die of the regular flu than the swine flu, which is why I think we are being a bit too worrisome.” In this, I do not believe we are being to “worrisome”, I believe that we are realizing the precautions we should take to avoid diseases. If we were to be as careful as we were while the swine flu was an “epidemic” then we wouldn’t stress over flu season or sicknesses as much, in general. Precautions like washing your hands after using the restroom, using antibacterial sanitizers after sneezing, cleaning toys at schools more often (since the swine flu was more common in children), and wiping off door and toilet knobs more frequently, would seriously decreases the spread of germs which cause bacteria and viruses to become diseases.
And though I may take it to the next extreme by believing that the government used the swine flu outbreak to cover up something more controversial, I still stand firm in trusting that we did push the swine flu to its media and health scaring limits.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Blog Stage Seven
What would you do if your laptop or camera were seized without a probable cause? The article Seizing Laptops and Cameras Without Cause, tells of many occasions in which persons coming back home from trip have become part of “random” search and seize inspections. It is not clear how inspectors pick whom they will be inspecting but the majority of searches done are of “travelers who were nearly all of Muslim, Middle Eastern, or South Asian descent.”
“Citing the lawsuits, customs officials decline to say how many computers, storage drives, cellphones, and BlackBerry's they have confiscated or what happens to them afterward.” When laptops and cameras were taken they typically were not given back for months. “Larry Cunningham, an assistant district attorney from New York, told the hearing: ‘I am aware of no authority that would permit the government, without probable cause to believe it contains contraband, to keep a person's laptop or to copy the contents of its files.’” The governments response to the custom officials taking persons personal electronics was that it was a way of keeping everyone safer. “Customs insists that terrorism and child pornography are sufficient justification for electronics searches. And even civil libertarians agree it makes sense for customs to search luggage, which could pose immediate dangers to aircraft and passengers.”
In response to the government doing such things, businesses have changed “their policies about traveling with corporate information. Many now require employees to access data remotely to avoid confiscations.”
Friday, April 24, 2009
Stage Six: Comment on Kristen's Blog Article
Kristen's post saids...
You won't be needing your organs anymore than you'll be needing your rights.
Adriana Arevalo suggests in her recent article "Organ Donations Should be Mandatory By Government", that the US government impose a law on all citizens requiring the donation of at least 1 organ after death. Proponents argue that since the person is dead, they won't need or miss the organ taken. If the donation is after death, what difference does it make if the government's minimum requirement is 1 or 5? If the government is going to force it's citizens to donate organs for the saving lives, why not take all those organs that can be used? For that matter, what's to stop the government from requiring that citizens donate their entire body to science or those in need of transplants? Proposing to force organ donation after death is as dangerous as just taking a peek into Pandora's box. Essentially, stripping away individual liberties is being masked as a charitable act.
Supporters of organ donation are quick to point out that there are currently 99,000 Americans in need of organ transplants who are biding their time on a wait list. With too few actual organs available, up to 19 people die each day while waiting for a match. Currently there are approximately 70 million organ donors in America. While this number is only a fraction of the total population, it is also a number far greater than the number of those in need. Increasing the number of donors would have an impact, but is there evidence to show how substantial that impact would truly be? Organs would only be available upon the death of a donor and even then, only in certain conditions. Proponents of the idea of requiring citizens to be organ donors would say that it is our duty as a society to save the lives of the 99,000 people on the waiting list. Don't we also deserve to be given factual information? The Washington Post discovered that the number of patients on the waiting list for transplants has been inflated by as much one-third. Thousands of patients on the ist are actually considered to be "inactive". Donna Luebke, a nurse who served on the board of directors for the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) "told the Post that the list was 'dishonest'." UNOS responded by saying "None of this changes the fact that there is a significant number of people who die waiting.", however, an organization willing to lie to the public does change things. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that 'dead' seems to be up for interpretation.
Zach Dunlap sustained severe head injuries last November and was pronounced brain dead. Being an organ donor, he was prepped for harvesting when his family members (not the doctors) tested for signs of life. Four months later, this 21 year old man walked out of the rehabilitation unit and appeared on NBC's Today Show. The latest and greatest in technology said this young man was dead, but a simple reflex test with a pocket knife told a different story. In order for organs to be viable for donation, there is a small window of opportunity to harvest. Haste almost cost this young person his life. While Zach's story is probably rare, it is not unheard of. Donating organs is meant to save lives, not cost lives. Zach's story is one with a happy ending. Others are less fortunate.Transplant surgeon Dr Roozrokh "has been accused of trying to speed the death of Ruben Navarro, a 25-year-old man with severe mental and physical disabilities." Hopes to harvest Mr. Navarro's organs after cardiac death were dashed when the man did not die as 'planned' after his ventilator was removed. Why should Zach or Mr. Navarro get to live when their organs could save so many other lives? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh that of the few? I know I don't want to run into the doctor that favors those thoughts. Let's not forget those doctors that have taken harvested organs and sold them for a profit on the black market. Those with enough money and a lack of patience have found doctors willing to sell legally harvested organs for the sake of bypassing the red tape involved in the waiting list and for the extra income.
If a law required all citizens to donate at least one organ after death, what kind of condition would these organs be in? Cancer patients, people carrying HIV, AIDS or a myriad of other conditions fall into the category of all citizens and would be required to donate organs. The ramifications of such things must be considered at great length. Some people may still argue that with a forced organ donor law, there would be an abundance of viable organs and the problems described above would cease to exist. However this is no evidence to back this claim. Despite an increase in organ donors, the list of waiting patients has largely remained the same.
Putting aside various religious beliefs that may be infringed upon, glazing over the fact liberties would be trampled by such an overstepping of boundaries, this proposal is riddled with far too many flaws for it to be considered an option in America. As citizens of a democracy, we simply enjoy our freedoms far too much to surrender them for a cause that, while noble and benevolent, is severely tarnished. Donating organs after death or even while living is often thought to be the most altruistic of acts. Compassion and love for mankind can be witnessed in the gesture of organ donation, until it becomes cheapened by being forced upon citizens. Organ donors are needed, but at what cost?
I commented back that…
As a willing organ donor, I myself would not be comfortable with being force to give up at least one of my organs upon my death. Having my freedoms as an American is something I prefer to keep and one I exercise. Imposing a law that requires everyone to give one organ after death is completely absurd and not what our foundation as America was based on. We are a free society and forcing laws upon the people is going against everything we Americans stand for.
In one benefit, of requiring organs after death, is that less people would die. Yet, this single benefit does not exceed our cons in this argument. Organ receivers, as mentioned in the article, could be transferred diseases. It could possibly be against their religion or even against their own personal willing limit. And not to be harsh, but death is a part of life. 600 years ago we didn't have medicine or surgeries to cure the sick, as we do now, and that is how we kept our births and deaths equal, now that we have advancements in science we are left with far too many mouths to feed and not enough room.
And in my opinion, organ donning would not just be required as a law, but would be infringing upon personal rights, beliefs, religions, respect, and freedom. The costs do not outweigh the need just as you, Kristen, argue in your case.
You won't be needing your organs anymore than you'll be needing your rights.
Adriana Arevalo suggests in her recent article "Organ Donations Should be Mandatory By Government", that the US government impose a law on all citizens requiring the donation of at least 1 organ after death. Proponents argue that since the person is dead, they won't need or miss the organ taken. If the donation is after death, what difference does it make if the government's minimum requirement is 1 or 5? If the government is going to force it's citizens to donate organs for the saving lives, why not take all those organs that can be used? For that matter, what's to stop the government from requiring that citizens donate their entire body to science or those in need of transplants? Proposing to force organ donation after death is as dangerous as just taking a peek into Pandora's box. Essentially, stripping away individual liberties is being masked as a charitable act.
Supporters of organ donation are quick to point out that there are currently 99,000 Americans in need of organ transplants who are biding their time on a wait list. With too few actual organs available, up to 19 people die each day while waiting for a match. Currently there are approximately 70 million organ donors in America. While this number is only a fraction of the total population, it is also a number far greater than the number of those in need. Increasing the number of donors would have an impact, but is there evidence to show how substantial that impact would truly be? Organs would only be available upon the death of a donor and even then, only in certain conditions. Proponents of the idea of requiring citizens to be organ donors would say that it is our duty as a society to save the lives of the 99,000 people on the waiting list. Don't we also deserve to be given factual information? The Washington Post discovered that the number of patients on the waiting list for transplants has been inflated by as much one-third. Thousands of patients on the ist are actually considered to be "inactive". Donna Luebke, a nurse who served on the board of directors for the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) "told the Post that the list was 'dishonest'." UNOS responded by saying "None of this changes the fact that there is a significant number of people who die waiting.", however, an organization willing to lie to the public does change things. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that 'dead' seems to be up for interpretation.
Zach Dunlap sustained severe head injuries last November and was pronounced brain dead. Being an organ donor, he was prepped for harvesting when his family members (not the doctors) tested for signs of life. Four months later, this 21 year old man walked out of the rehabilitation unit and appeared on NBC's Today Show. The latest and greatest in technology said this young man was dead, but a simple reflex test with a pocket knife told a different story. In order for organs to be viable for donation, there is a small window of opportunity to harvest. Haste almost cost this young person his life. While Zach's story is probably rare, it is not unheard of. Donating organs is meant to save lives, not cost lives. Zach's story is one with a happy ending. Others are less fortunate.Transplant surgeon Dr Roozrokh "has been accused of trying to speed the death of Ruben Navarro, a 25-year-old man with severe mental and physical disabilities." Hopes to harvest Mr. Navarro's organs after cardiac death were dashed when the man did not die as 'planned' after his ventilator was removed. Why should Zach or Mr. Navarro get to live when their organs could save so many other lives? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh that of the few? I know I don't want to run into the doctor that favors those thoughts. Let's not forget those doctors that have taken harvested organs and sold them for a profit on the black market. Those with enough money and a lack of patience have found doctors willing to sell legally harvested organs for the sake of bypassing the red tape involved in the waiting list and for the extra income.
If a law required all citizens to donate at least one organ after death, what kind of condition would these organs be in? Cancer patients, people carrying HIV, AIDS or a myriad of other conditions fall into the category of all citizens and would be required to donate organs. The ramifications of such things must be considered at great length. Some people may still argue that with a forced organ donor law, there would be an abundance of viable organs and the problems described above would cease to exist. However this is no evidence to back this claim. Despite an increase in organ donors, the list of waiting patients has largely remained the same.
Putting aside various religious beliefs that may be infringed upon, glazing over the fact liberties would be trampled by such an overstepping of boundaries, this proposal is riddled with far too many flaws for it to be considered an option in America. As citizens of a democracy, we simply enjoy our freedoms far too much to surrender them for a cause that, while noble and benevolent, is severely tarnished. Donating organs after death or even while living is often thought to be the most altruistic of acts. Compassion and love for mankind can be witnessed in the gesture of organ donation, until it becomes cheapened by being forced upon citizens. Organ donors are needed, but at what cost?
I commented back that…
As a willing organ donor, I myself would not be comfortable with being force to give up at least one of my organs upon my death. Having my freedoms as an American is something I prefer to keep and one I exercise. Imposing a law that requires everyone to give one organ after death is completely absurd and not what our foundation as America was based on. We are a free society and forcing laws upon the people is going against everything we Americans stand for.
In one benefit, of requiring organs after death, is that less people would die. Yet, this single benefit does not exceed our cons in this argument. Organ receivers, as mentioned in the article, could be transferred diseases. It could possibly be against their religion or even against their own personal willing limit. And not to be harsh, but death is a part of life. 600 years ago we didn't have medicine or surgeries to cure the sick, as we do now, and that is how we kept our births and deaths equal, now that we have advancements in science we are left with far too many mouths to feed and not enough room.
And in my opinion, organ donning would not just be required as a law, but would be infringing upon personal rights, beliefs, religions, respect, and freedom. The costs do not outweigh the need just as you, Kristen, argue in your case.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Global Warming… Making an Unjust Cause Just
Fighting global warming should be a priority for the U.S. national government. According to the article title, Global Warming by Subhankar Banerjee, “The latest report from the climate panel predicted that the global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice the level of 1750. By 2100, sea levels are likely to rise between 7 to 23 inches, it said, and the changes now underway will continue for centuries to come.” When it comes to our planet, do we want to protect it and continue to make it a safe place for our grandchildren and others to come? Because the way we are going now, it won’t be a likely enough safe place.
Our U.S. national government needs to step up and take action in order to save our planet. The European Union has been fighting global warming and if they can, I know we can. I believe the U.S. could change the attitude of the American people to become more optimistic. Because of right now, the attitude is that one state enacting global warming law will not have an impact, or that even one household will not change the climate issues. But of course they won’t! How long has it taken global warming to come into effect? It doesn’t just happen overnight, we need to continuously and consistently keeping up the fight against global warming and one day our change will have a significant impact. And maybe it won’t be one that we will live the day to see, but it will come and our U.S. national government need to do more than just pay for commercial adds to influence our opinions, they too need to make the change.
___________________________________________________________________
What more could you do to lessen global warming?
Buy a hybrid or fuel efficient car
Carpool when you can
Inflate your tires
Change your air filters
Reduce garbage output
Use recycled paper
Unplug Un-used electronics
Plant a tree
Landscape your home for energy efficiency
Fighting global warming should be a priority for the U.S. national government. According to the article title, Global Warming by Subhankar Banerjee, “The latest report from the climate panel predicted that the global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice the level of 1750. By 2100, sea levels are likely to rise between 7 to 23 inches, it said, and the changes now underway will continue for centuries to come.” When it comes to our planet, do we want to protect it and continue to make it a safe place for our grandchildren and others to come? Because the way we are going now, it won’t be a likely enough safe place.
Our U.S. national government needs to step up and take action in order to save our planet. The European Union has been fighting global warming and if they can, I know we can. I believe the U.S. could change the attitude of the American people to become more optimistic. Because of right now, the attitude is that one state enacting global warming law will not have an impact, or that even one household will not change the climate issues. But of course they won’t! How long has it taken global warming to come into effect? It doesn’t just happen overnight, we need to continuously and consistently keeping up the fight against global warming and one day our change will have a significant impact. And maybe it won’t be one that we will live the day to see, but it will come and our U.S. national government need to do more than just pay for commercial adds to influence our opinions, they too need to make the change.
___________________________________________________________________
What more could you do to lessen global warming?
Buy a hybrid or fuel efficient car
Carpool when you can
Inflate your tires
Change your air filters
Reduce garbage output
Use recycled paper
Unplug Un-used electronics
Plant a tree
Landscape your home for energy efficiency
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Sleeping Pill Use Grows as Economy Keeps People Up at Night
I believe the author, Denise Gellene’s intended audience was to the mid-aged group, in order to tell them about the effects sleeping pills can have on the body, especially the brain. Also, Denise Gellene wrote the article as a warning to young adults to not get hooked onto sleeping medication at such young ages because it could carry serious consequence later on down the road
Denise Gellene, a reporter and editor for the Los Angeles Times Newspaper and has worked in the newspaper industry for a total of 23 years. Denise Gellene is said to be a “Skilled communicator with management experience at a top media organization. Excels at translating complex concepts. Proven ability to work under pressure. Areas of focus: science, medicine, biotechnology and business and economics” (According to website linkedin). From this information I gather that Denise is a credited author.”
The article Sleeping Pill Use Grows as Economy Keeps People Up at Night, obviously, was about sleeping medication. It focused on (today’s) society welcoming it as a “normality” and everyday use, mainly because of economic reasons, such as lost jobs and instability in an unstable environment. Denise Gellene advocated the non-use of sleeping pills because of side effects such as next-day drowsiness, dependency, sleep walking, sleep driving, memory loss, sleep eating, and even death. “But some doctors are concerned that the heavy prescribing contributes to a false impression that the medications are perfectly safe.” Denise logically contributes statistics and doctor analyzes of sleep patterns, while informing his audience in a non-pushy way. He, in my opinion, stated his argument very well and got his point across clearly and in a well-written manner. Already having agreed with Denise argument before reading he persuaded me even more with the evidence, “Dr. David Fassler, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, said some doctors may be prescribing medications instead of treating the underlying cause of sleeplessness, such as depression or anxiety.” This has proved to be right in many cases, yet doctors and prescribers forget the patients’ first need and think only about providing short-term help and “goody-feelings”
Denise Gellene, a reporter and editor for the Los Angeles Times Newspaper and has worked in the newspaper industry for a total of 23 years. Denise Gellene is said to be a “Skilled communicator with management experience at a top media organization. Excels at translating complex concepts. Proven ability to work under pressure. Areas of focus: science, medicine, biotechnology and business and economics” (According to website linkedin). From this information I gather that Denise is a credited author.”
The article Sleeping Pill Use Grows as Economy Keeps People Up at Night, obviously, was about sleeping medication. It focused on (today’s) society welcoming it as a “normality” and everyday use, mainly because of economic reasons, such as lost jobs and instability in an unstable environment. Denise Gellene advocated the non-use of sleeping pills because of side effects such as next-day drowsiness, dependency, sleep walking, sleep driving, memory loss, sleep eating, and even death. “But some doctors are concerned that the heavy prescribing contributes to a false impression that the medications are perfectly safe.” Denise logically contributes statistics and doctor analyzes of sleep patterns, while informing his audience in a non-pushy way. He, in my opinion, stated his argument very well and got his point across clearly and in a well-written manner. Already having agreed with Denise argument before reading he persuaded me even more with the evidence, “Dr. David Fassler, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, said some doctors may be prescribing medications instead of treating the underlying cause of sleeplessness, such as depression or anxiety.” This has proved to be right in many cases, yet doctors and prescribers forget the patients’ first need and think only about providing short-term help and “goody-feelings”
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wealth and Consumption
As for being an article based on money and consumption, it was intended for everyone, especially now because of the “recession” we are in. Jay Hancock, who is the author of “Hancock: Americans must remember that wealth should be a means, not an end” has been a financial columnist since 2001. He claims that as Americans, “If you think about money in the context of what economics says about true fulfillment, having less of it shouldn't be quite so painful.” Through this he is attempting to encourage that money shouldn’t be so much of an upsetting downfall, like it is to most Americans, but as a way to build and grow from loosing. Hancock gives evidence to support his claim, by including everyday persons opinions, just like you and I. He proposes to uses the chaos and disorder of life now to help create order, structure, and meaning for people’s lives. “In the grand scheme, money is less important than other assets anyway, happiness experts say.”
Overall, I do agree with Hancock’s opinions but his attempt to comfort people from this economic twist seems a little overwhelming at times. He acts as if he is looking down on everyone and pitying them; this (type of writing) is degrading to me and probably to most Americans. “And we shouldn't reject wealth and growth altogether.” (“We”, he sounds as if he is thinking for everyone.) I believe that because of this, with proof from the comments left, harsh and defensive feelings were conveyed and felt.
Overall, I do agree with Hancock’s opinions but his attempt to comfort people from this economic twist seems a little overwhelming at times. He acts as if he is looking down on everyone and pitying them; this (type of writing) is degrading to me and probably to most Americans. “And we shouldn't reject wealth and growth altogether.” (“We”, he sounds as if he is thinking for everyone.) I believe that because of this, with proof from the comments left, harsh and defensive feelings were conveyed and felt.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Conference Without the Republicans
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667
This article tells of a conference Democrats held in which they proposed, “to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package.” In this meeting no Republicans were present. This poses to be a major problem because both parties may not be equally happy with the “stimulus” plan because one side had a greater impact than the other. HUMAN EVENTS has attempted to call and e-mail Specter’s and Collin’s staffs to seek whether they [Republicans] were present at the conference.
I think this article is worth reading because we need to be aware of the changing times, with more Democrats in the seat. That simple yet big issues like this, could arise and we the people need to be informed.
This article tells of a conference Democrats held in which they proposed, “to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package.” In this meeting no Republicans were present. This poses to be a major problem because both parties may not be equally happy with the “stimulus” plan because one side had a greater impact than the other. HUMAN EVENTS has attempted to call and e-mail Specter’s and Collin’s staffs to seek whether they [Republicans] were present at the conference.
I think this article is worth reading because we need to be aware of the changing times, with more Democrats in the seat. That simple yet big issues like this, could arise and we the people need to be informed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
