Teenage Pregnancy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7136196.stm

I came across this article today while reading the news about a 15 year old girl who became pregnant at age 13 and chose to have the baby. Although teenage pregnancy rates have been dropping in the past few years, it's still shocking to hear a story like this. When I hear a story like this, I try to remember what I was like at 13. When I was 13, I was just going through puberty and had no interest in even having a boyfriend never mind committing to doing something so drastic and potentially physically/emotionally damaging as having sex. I wonder why these girls are interested in sex at this age and who is to blame for their behavior. Is it lack of sex ed in school, being molested at a young age (which is often the answer for many girls), or is it lack of parental attention and teaching. That's another frightening idea. Most parents who have a 13 year old girl (or boy) will most likely talk to their child about puberty, but how many of them will find it necessary to talk to them about condoms or abortions? Is this something parents need to do now? Will I need to, when/if I have a child some day, talk to my 10 year old about sex just to make her/him prepared for it? Our generation has truly brought about a death of innocence and it scares me to think about what the world might be like 10 or 20 years from now.

Shortage of Organ Donors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7136005.stm

This recent article from BBC News states that there is a serious shortage in organ donors which is leading surgeons to use organs from drug-addicts on their patients. It also goes on to state that the government might instate a law forcing everyone to be an organ donor unless they specifically decline. I find myself disturbed by these ideas. First of all, it has been proven (according to this article, and common sense) that giving a sick person a liver or kidney from someone who died of a drug overdose can be unhealthy and can lead to greater risk of infection, and I believe that it should be considered unethical on the part of the doctor. The organs of someone who abused their body to the point of death in life should be considered "damaged goods" and should not be used to "improve" the health of the sick and dying.

Also, personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of everyone being written down as an organ donor. My boyfriend once expressed his concerns about this idea to me a while ago. He said that he would never be an organ donor because he believed that if he was in a near-fatal car accident, and the paramedics came and saw he was an organ donor, that they might let him die instead of trying to save his life just to harvest his valuable organs. At first I thought this idea was paranoid and ridiculous, but now I'm not so sure. If organs are becoming such an important and scarce commodity, and the government may be (practically) forcing us to give them up when we die, I don't know if I would feel safe getting into an accident and being put into the care of paramedics. I know it sounds somewhat crazy, kind of like something out of a sci-fi movie, but I think it could happen--not to everyone, but to some unlucky people, maybe.

Furthermore, I'm not so sure that not having enough organs to save the lives of already sick people is such an important cause. Since the onslaught of modern medicine, we've forgotten entirely about evolution. I know it sounds cruel, but some people just aren't meant to live. It's a hard pill to swallow but we are still evolving (this process doesn't just stop) and nature, as always, weeds out the weak. I know its tragic when a 7 year old child needs a heart transplant to live but think about it, even if she gets the new heart, her life will never be entirely normal or without health problems. And if someone is over 50 or 60, personally, I believe they should just accept that their time has come. It just seems to me that because of medicine, we like to think we're invincible; we forget how weak we really are. Its not that I don't believe in medicine; I believe that people should get help when they are sick, as much as doctors can give. I just believe in drawing a line and remembering that death is a part of life.

What Is True?

Last class I brought up an idea relating to truth and its existence. The example I provided to explain this idea was as follows: if every single person on Earth believed that the world was flat, and there was no prove that the world is round, then the world would be flat. Personally, I believe that if enough people believe that something is true, even if 20 years later that thing is proven false, for the time being, that thing would be true. Truth is subjective in many cases, and that is what makes it so difficult [for me at least] to know what is true and what is false. There are many cases in which the truth cannot be discerned because we do not have enough knowledge of the subject to do so, so that makes me wonder, is everything that I believe to be true actually true or is it just something I believe?

Education

Today, in my english class, we read an article from The Wall Street Journal about Phil Knight, CEO of Nike, who, at the age of 69, went to Stanford U. to learn how to become a writer. I thought this was amazing. It is so rare today to see people go out and strive to learn and become better people, and to see someone who is almost 70 do this is very admirable. Of course, Mr. Knight is a billionare and can afford to take time off to go to school but even though he has more money than the average person will ever see in 10 lifetimes, this does not mean that everyone shouldnt go out and try to do the same thing. I see people at this school who are simply coasting through life without a care; they come to school, talk on their phones in class, and seem completely jaded by the entire education process. I wonder why these people are in school, why they care at all? I feel that every single college student should show 100% dedication to learning or else they shouldnt be in school at all. If a man 50 years older than the average college student still has the desire to learn, then certainly an 18 year old fresh out of high school would want to do the same?...Right?

Reading Today

I was on the subway today and noticed an ad for "books" that one can listen to via one's iPod or similar device. The text in the ad went on to state, essentially, that one can become a more intelligent and worldly person through doing this. I find this appalling. If a person wants to become more intelligent, worldly, and insightful they should READ! Not listen to a book, not hear a friend recite it, but read it; as in pick up a book, look at it, and process the words. Reading is essential to learning; it expands one's vocabulary and quickens one's mental processes. Listening to a book just isn't the same and never will be.

Discovering What You Don't Know

"When you discover what you don't know, what's left?"

I think this is a question that more people should give greater thought to. There is no shame in not knowing something; even people with PHD's, people who have devoted their entire lives to learning and education, cannot know everything. There is shame, however, in not expanding upon one's knowledge and becoming more educated. When you discover what you don't know, everything is left to you and everything is open to you. No doors are closed unless you refuse to pass through them and the amount of knowledge that you can gain is unending.

Knowing

"Sometimes knowing what you don't know and why you don't know it is all you need to know."

During class I was somewhat bothered by this statement. To me, this seemed to be saying that one should accept their limitations and simply not bother to try and improve or achieve one's goals, however outlandish they might be. However, now, when I think about it, it seems that this statement has more merit than I formerly gave it. It is important to know what you don't know and to accept that. If a 35 year old person wants to be a famous musician but cannot play nearly as good as their superiors (after, hypothetically, 23 years of playing), they will never make it--it is simply not plausible and to believe that it is possible would be foolish. Personally, I believe that if someone has a dream or a goal, even if its highly unlikely that they'll make it, they should at least try. If one tries, one can never live in regret but rather gains valuable knowledge of them self and their limitations.

The US Patriot Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
This site offers a very comprehensive look into the patriot act; anyone interested in learning more about it should give this a read.

Some of the changes the Act brought about include:

- Giving the law enforcement the rights to look into e-mail and telephone lines, and medical and financial records as well.

- Gave Secretary of State more power with financial relations

- Enhanced power of law enforcement to detain immigrants

- And gave police the right to search homes without a warrant

These are just some of the changes made, all of which take away from our civil liberties that are supposed to be undenyable according to the Constitution.

Stem Cells From Skin Cells

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7101834.stm

This is a link to a really interesting article from BBC News about how scientists have recently discovered that skin cells can be used like stem cells from fetuses to rebuild damaged areas of the human body. This is an amazing breakthrough, especially because stem cells from fetuses caused such an uproar with the religious right who believed that this would encourage the full legalization of abortions. We can only hope this research will continue. It is unbelievable that this research was called to a halt because of the controversy over using fetuses (which I believe makes no sense because if theyre already dead, why not use them?) and if this research progresses, who knows how many lives could be saved.

Faith

In yesterdays class I was surprised [well, not that surprised truly] to hear someone say that faith is something that can be quantified--that it is something greater than belief. Belief is defined as an idea that someone accepts as truth, despite truth, reason, or evidence. Faith, according to Dictionary.com, "is a belief that is not based on truth." Faith is a feeling, a belief that can become so strong that it becomes truth and reality for that person. Religion is an example of faith; religion in fact requires faith and it is nothing more than a belief because it lacks evidence and reason and can never grow into knowledge.

Greed and Death in Madagascar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7098213.stm

This article from BBC.com is focused on the recent "gold rush" in Madagascar. It is not gold that is being cultivated however, but sapphires, and because of the high demand and high amount of the precious stones in the area, Ilakaka, Madagascar has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world. According to recent reports, 20-30 are killed per year (the population of Ilakaka is only 20,000) because of competition between people trying to find as many sapphires as they can. I found this article to be highly disturbing. It is amazing what greed can do to people, how people will gun each other down just for the chance of selling a precious stone.

Beliefs on Death

I was thinking about the discussion we had last week in class about death. I recall that one person in class repeatedly mentioned that death was something he feared while others mentioned that death is natural and a part of life. I think beliefs, more than an acceptance of reality, factor very heavily into one's perceptions on death. Personally, I'm an atheist; I don't believe in a God or an afterlife and I believe that when I die, I will remain in the ground where my body will rot. I don't believe in a soul or that a part of myself will transcend into another life. I have no fear of death (unless it is an untimely one) because I know what awaits me. For those who believe in heaven/hell or are unsure of what happens after death, I imagine death must be a terrifying idea. How can one accept death when they believe that if they've committed too many sins they will suffer for eternity? It must be near impossible to accept the inevitable in this case, unless one is so firm in their beliefs that they know they will end up in a good place after death.

Breastfeeding and Intelligence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7075511.stm

Interesting article that states that a single gene may influence and increase a baby's IQ if the child is also breastfed.

Beliefs: Near Death Experiences

Today, I was thinking about beliefs and how they influence our thinking in such an incredible way. This thought brought me to the idea of near-death experiences and how many people believe them to be real and that they allow an individual to experience or eye-witness the afterlife, thereby ensuring to that individual that Heaven/Hell do exist. I would like to share a bit of information on a biological theory relating to this idea.

In the 90's, a scientist named Dr. Strassman came up with a theory relating near-death experiences to DMT (dimenthyltryptamine). DMT is a powerful hallucinogen and recreational drug that gives the user a 5-10 minute trip that makes the user feel as though they are in another world altogether: in short, it is the most powerful psychoactive drug currently known to man. DMT, however, is also a natural chemical that is produced by the brain in the pineal gland. Upon death, a large amount of DMT is naturally released by the brain; the individual never remembers the experience, however, because they die shortly after. When a person experiences a "near-death experience," in truth, all that is happening is the brain becomes confused, believes that the person should be dying, and prematurely releases a large amount of DMT. When the individual is resuscitated, they remember the trip and rationalize it as witnessing Heaven/Hell/or some other version of the afterlife.

Just something to consider...

Perceiving Worksheet

1) Photos and videos show truth but they also show a slightly skewed version of the truth that is meant to influence others. The shots that photographers take are supposed to not only display an event that has actually happened but also portray it in a light that supports the artist's intent. Photos in journalism, for example, can be very reliable as a look into an event, but one must also be sure to have a discerning eye.

2) I am not sure if there is anyone who can describe a situation without perception factoring into it, therefore I am not sure if fact ever actually begins. Anyone who views, lets say, a robbery, views it in their own way: they all agree a robbery took place, but the details will change slightly from person to person. Fact can only be fact if every witness agrees on what happened, but this is often rare. So I am not sure if I have a true answer to this question; there are too many factors to answer it definitively.

3) Fact is what actually happened whereas perception is what we think happened based on our views, our preconceptions, our biases, and based on how much of the situation we actually viewed or took part in. But since fact is always altered by perception (since everyone has their own perceptions of reality and every situation they are involved in), I am not sure if there truly is a difference between the two. They very well might be one in the same. Therefore, truth (may just be) what you make of it.

Colugos ("Flying Lemurs") Linked to Humans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7073807.stm

This article from BBC News describes how scientists have discovered that Colugos (also known as flying lemurs, for their large flaps of skin connecting their arms and legs that allow them to glide) are the closest relatives to humans after primates. This is an interesting study which shows that colugos share 7 similar genetic mutations with primates which links the two species very closely together. More research into this species could, in the future, tell us more about ourselves.

AA

Recently I was discussing the topic of AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) with a family member who is a recovering alcoholic and I decided that AA is one of the worst things to happen to our society and our views on rehabilitation. There is nothing wrong in seeking a community and commonality when one is trying to overcome a problem; in fact, it can be incredibly beneficial which is understandable that it is one of AA's biggest appeals. However, the fact that AA forces its members to believe and sacrifice all power over to a higher power is dangerous, ridiculous, and completely counterproductive. In order to get over a problem as damaging as alcohol addiction, one must believe that they have the power to do it; one must believe in oneself and not some higher power that they may not even believe in. Furthermore, telling addicts that they have no power, that only God has power to help them, makes a person (who is already vulnerable) feel as though they have no hope, no real self-control. In addition, it is ridiculous that AA is forced upon addicts who are sentenced in court and that AA is seen as the only option for recovery in our society. The statistic still stands: 5-10% of addicts will recover, with or without AA. I feel that people should try to recover on their own; they should try to find the strength within themselves to overcome rather than become dependent on a God or "higher power" that they may not even have faith in.

Cancer and Weightloss

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7069914.stm
According to this article from BBC News, there is apparently a close relation between weight and cancer risk. Apparently, people who are overweight are more at risk (especially after the age of 25) and that all people should try to remain at a good weight for their height without becoming underweight. This seems to me to be like good advice in one respect (as being conscious of one's health is always important) however they do use the body mass index to determine what weight everyone should be and this scale is highly skewed.

Emphasis on College in America

As I mentioned in class today, I feel that college has been overemphasised in our country (unfortunately, I cannot speak for other countries) over the past few decades. Statistically, over 50% of Americans are/or have been enrolled in college at some point. However, only 26% graduate with a BA. This statistic proves something: half of the people enrolled in college dont care about their education and are possibly just going to college because they were told they had to. In decades past, when college wasnt as "necessary" as it is today, the only people who went to college were either affluent or cared about their education. I think more people today need to think about why they are in school: if they want to learn and get a degree in a field theyre passionate about or if theyre just going because everyone told them they had to in order to get a good job or because of family pressure.

Fate

Today in my English class we read a student essay in which the writer stated that fate, or some sort of organized, divine plan, controls our lives. I was baffled by this essay. I know many people in the world find comfort in the idea of fate: that life brings certain people together for a reason, that all people have a destined path in life, and so on. But I find it to be wholly unsettling. It is impossible for fate to exist on the point that human beings have the ability to make decisions. We choose our own paths, we make our own way, and no God or spirit or divine plan can push us in a direction we don't want to go. And furthermore, there are no divine entities watching over us who have decided our fate even before we were born. Do you really think your God has time for all that? Or that he would even really care? Well, he probably wouldn't.

Although I am highly opposed to all religions, I do have to say that if I were to believe in anything, it would be in the religious philosophy of the French Enlightenment which described God as the watchmaker: he set it all into motion and we must carry out our lives from there. In that you have the comfort and the freedom, although I would suggest being an individual--its much more satisfying.

HIV: Origins In Haiti

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7068574.stm
An interesting article from BBC News that states that scientists feel that the HIV virus may have reached the US by way of Haiti. They theorize that several Haitians, who may have spent some time in Africa (where the disease is thought to have originated), came to America and the disease spread from there.

Evolution Today

Recently I remembered an interesting article I read over the summer on the BBC News website about sharks and how they are continuing to evolve. Recently, female sharks have adapted to be able to reproduce a-sexually; this phenomenon is the result of the decreased numbers of male sharks over the past decades due to poaching of the animal. Although the a-sexually produced offspring have some genetic abnormalities and are not as strong as naturally produced sharks, they are still sharks, still functionally, and the sharks, due to this amazing example of continuing evolution, will continue to survive and keep their numbers up. I think this is an amazing thing to consider; our world is ever-changing, constantly evolving, and the organisms whose lives we effect are constantly struggling and surviving despite our often damaging impact. This is a fact we should never forget: evolution does not stop and some day, we might have to change as well or be thrown off of our throne at the top of the food chain.

IVM - In Vitro Maturation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7058291.stm
This article is about a new form of fertilization, similar to but safer than IVF (in vitro fertilization), called IVM, in vitro maturation. The difference is that with IVF a woman must get series of fertility shots and dangerous hormone injections, but with IVM, a woman gets one shot, her eggs are removed, then fertilized and matured in a lab for a couple of days. Once matured, the egg is placed in the woman's womb.

This is all very interesting but also highly disturbing. The women who get these procedures done are (by nature) not supposed to have children; that's the way their bodies are, that's the way they should live. These procedures are not cheap nor are they natural or necessarily safe and its shocking to think that rich women are paying thousands for babies that lower-class women are having all the time at age 15. Those 15 year old girls are getting abortions while these rich women pay for in vitro. It really makes you think about the class differences that are still so strong in our society.

There is another problem I have with IVM/IVF as well. In my mind, there is an easy way to solve the problem of infertility: adoption. Sure, it wont be your biological baby but does that really matter? Nature is telling you, through your infertility, that you shouldn't and are not supposed to breed naturally. If you want a child, adopt one. You'll love it just as much and you'll be helping solve the serious population problem we have today. There is no need to keep adding more people to the planet when there are people (meaning babies) on it who don't even have mothers. More people should think about that before visiting their fertility doctor.

Depression and Thinking

I was having a discussion with my boyfriend the other day about how depression is viewed as a serious “disease” in our country when, in truth, it is (or would be) an easily solved inconvenience if people just used a little bit of thought. Everyone gets sad; in fact, everyone experiences depression at least once in their life. It’s not fun nor is it pleasant, but it can, and always does pass. And the way to do it is to simply change one’s perspective and one’s life. If your friends make you miserable—get new friends. If your family drives you crazy—talk to them and try to work out the problem, or just disconnect with them if that’s not possible. If you're bored and feel miserable all the time, try doing something that makes you happy, or at least go outside and be around people who love you. There are solutions and many people who have tried some of the solutions above will tell you that it works. This is because most people who are “depressed” are not depressed in a chemical sense. They are merely feeling a little down but because our society almost praises depression by elevating it to the status of a disease they believe that there is no way out, that they are doomed and life will never be the same again. This is simply not true for most of the people with depression. However when a doctor tells you that life will be happy and beautiful if you just pop a little pill every morning, most people choose to be irrational (and irresponsible with their bodies and minds) and opt for the “easy” way out. I find this to be disgusting on the part of the doctors and sad on the part of the depressed individuals; if only they would realize that the solution to life’s problems is not in a tiny white pill but rather in yourself and your own ability to control your life, your thoughts, and your emotions.

Fighting and Conceding

A couple of days ago my boyfriend and I were discussing global warming. He came in with the position that no one really cares and that no solution will be found because not enough people will ever care. I came in on the opposing side; people do care and eventually enough people will band together to make a difference. We argued for hours and finally I agreed with him (truthfully), conceded, and changed my argument to this “people do care but not enough people will care, on a whole, to make a difference”. I stand by that belief today and am not ashamed of the fact that I learned something from another person and was smart enough to accept when I had been beaten. I was reminded of this situation today as I believe it is a good example of critical thinking. Too many people are too stubborn and cocky to admit defeat. However I believe that there is more to be said for a person who admits they are wrong; they are not a fool, they are flexible, and they are smart enough to know that there is no shame in learning from others.

Global Warming

The other day, after waking up and taking a shower, I decided to go buy myself a bagel for breakfast. While waiting on my food, I started up a conversation with the man behind the counter. “Beautiful day today, isn’t it?” he asked, I agreed but stated that the weather is bizarre for this time of year. In response he said “yeah, it’ll be a warm Halloween this year, thank God.”

I myself must admit that I am no activist; I rarely read the news, I'm not up on many issues, and I don’t go out of my way to defend the environment. However, I do care about the state of our planet which seems to be becoming worse and worse by the day. It is late October yet the weather is still 70 degrees almost everyday. The sun is scorching hot and breezes are rare; even the trees seem confused by the weather has many are still green and have yet to loose their leaves. It is disturbing seeing the world around change so drastically. What may have once seemed like a far away fear when I was a child is now all too real. Some people may minimize the strange weather we’ve been having, or may even be grateful for it, I however am deeply disturbed.

AIDS conspiracy, cont.

I was thinking about my last post (about the supposed AIDS conspiracy) and I find it utterly ridiculous. I just cannot believe that AIDS would be introduced by our government to wipe out either the gay community or another minority community. I can believe that it would be used in bio-warfare, because war is always ugly, brutal, and senseless. The problem with using a disease as a form of genocide is that diseases cannot be controlled. Lets say the government gave 10 gay men the AIDS virus under some other pretense; they go out and each have sex with 10 men. Those men all get AIDS. But lets say one of those men had a wife at home or was bisexual; he has sex with a woman, gives her AIDS, suddenly the government is responsible for killing people who weren't on the list. Diseases spread rapidly and without prejudice; how could our government release a deadly disease and expect it to only kill those they wanted it to. Maybe the government doesn't really care who they kill, you might say. I don't believe it. Call me crazy but I think too many people spend too much time thinking of conspiracy theories and how evil the government is. Sure, there's a lot of false advertising in America; the most obvious lie is freedom is free. But that doesn't mean that it's not a great country, that we don't have freedom and the right to say and do what we want. I mean, we're allowed to say openly that the government is evil and corrupt! How amazing is that! I just think that as Americans, we have it too good. We're fat, lazy, drive big cars so we don't have to walk or be in discomfort--everything is handed to us. We even have the luxury of being depressed! We have it so good that we can take time out of our day to sit and mope and be miserable for a while. Do you think anyone in a 3rd world country has that right? Even if a man from Ethiopia was depressed, do you think he'd sit around thinking about it all day? No, he doesn't have the luxury because he has more important things to worry about. In America, we don't have many important things to worry about anymore so we like making up stories to give us something to fret over. I'm not saying that the government is completely clean or that people shouldn't question what they're told, but for "god's sake," calm down a little because not everything is a lie!

AIDS conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories
Last class someone brought up the idea that AIDS may have been created and released by the government as a form of population control. This wikipedia article has some information on the topic, including some propositions from biologists, doctors, and other notable people who suggest that AIDS may have been created by the US government as a way to genocide certain undesirable people, as a form of biological warfare, or as means of population control. The article contains no research, only lists of people who believe in the conspiracy, but it does contain names of articles written by the theorists which some people may be interested in reading.

Beliefs

Earlier today I was thinking about a discussion we had last week over Zodiac signs and astrology and whether it is a legitimate faith or just a fun idea. Personally I believe it is ridiculous, however I do find it interesting in a fun, joking sort of way—I definitely do not take it seriously. I remember in class someone said that astrology can be dangerous and that it is better to find faith in organized religion than in the stars. This I found to be ridiculous as well. Personally, I do not see the difference between believing in an old book that tells tales of an old god on a cloud who killed his only son and believing that the stars will determine your fate, your love life, and your personality. They're both crazy. If you believe that Jesus Christ was god in human form, if you believe we go anywhere but into the dirt when we die, if you believe you are constantly being watched and judged by God you are just was unrealistic, strange, and “cultish” (as one person in class described astrology) as Zodiac believers. Just because an institution is hundreds of years old doesn’t mean its right or rational. No one who follows a religion has the right to tell someone who believes differently that they're crazy. You're both equally crazy; accept your similarities, don’t hate your differences.

Voting

Today in class I was given a voter’s registration form by one of my classmates and it made me think about how important voting really is to me. I am nineteen but I have never voted nor registered. I was going to vote last year while living in Wisconsin (it was a vote to legalize gay marriage, an issue I am strongly for) however I met with some problems and wasn't able to vote. Today I consider myself a person who is not terribly interested in politics, although many people tell me I should be. I rarely read the political news, I don’t even know everyone whose running for election, and I constantly find myself unable to stay focused or interested when hearing about current events. I know its “wrong”, but I simply don’t care. This is mostly due to the fact that I haven’t watched or read the news regularly in a very long time. The way I feel about getting back into the news is like beginning to watch a long running dramatic series mid season; I don’t know any of the characters or the details of their relationships with others, I don’t know what their goals are, their fears, or the general plot line. How am I supposed to pick my favorite character if I'm so unfamiliar with the show? I suppose its never too late but I'm just not sure that I care enough to get back into it. Although the idea of not voting and ending up with another Bush (a vote which I couldn’t take part in but I wish I could have) does fill me with a great deal of anger and guilt.

sex, marriage, relationships

After our last class, I had a few more thoughts on our class discussion of sex and relationships.

Sex

Sexuality today has definitely changed in the past century; it is something that people are far more open about now and more willing to experiment with. However I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing that people want to have sex before marriage. In fact, I don't think there is any significant plus to waiting until marriage. Sex is a natural, animal (and therefore human) function that we are supposed to have. Reproduction and self-preservation are, when it comes down to it, the most important part of being alive. They are two of our main motivations in life (even though life today is seemingly more complicated). However, today we must be more particular about who we choose to reproduce with because otherwise that we would be irresponsible people. This does not mean that there is not such thing as safe sex and that it is possible for people to enjoy sex before they find the person they want to have children with. All marriage does is complicate life and set rules on the laws that nature gave us. This is all religion's fault; a institution that has always attempted to take the animal out of humans (something which simply cannot be done). Religion says sex before marriage is a sin, but there is nothing evil about enjoying something that is supposed to feel good. Nature tells us that sex should be enjoyed (in our anatomy) but religion tries to tell us that sex is only enjoyable if you are married (a blatant lie). I think sex is something that should be responsibly experienced by anybody who feels emotionally ready to try it. I dont think 14 year old kids should be having sex, I dont think anyone who isnt ready should be having sex, but if someone fefels that they are, no one should stop them.

Rupert Murdoch and Clinton

This article explains that the high praise and support for Hilary Clinton in the New York Post is no accident since Rupert Murdoch (owner of The Post) is a huge supporter to Ms. Clinton. It is said that he has hosted fundraisers for her and has raised millions of dollars for her campaign; not to mention the fact that she is practically talked about as the election winner in The New York Post. The Post is no more than low-brow, poorly written propaganda used by the billionaire Murdoch to support his favorite candidate. This couldn't be farther from the definition of news (which should be founded in truth and fact), but since no one respects The Post, Rupert Murdoch can use The Post as his own little playground where only his good friends (like Ms. Clinton) are invited to come and play.

Rupert Murdoch backs Hillary Clinton: by their friends you shall know them
By Bill Van Auken, Socialist Equality Party candidate for US Senate from New York10 May 2006
Use this version to print Send this link by email Email the author
The billionaire media magnate Rupert Murdoch changed his nationality from Australian to American some two decades ago in order to further his aim of gobbling up US media for his global empire. In both countries, he projected an image of a super-patriot and nationalist.
When it comes to politics, Murdoch, known in media circles as the “dirty digger,” is equally adaptable in pursuing his personal gain. The most loyal right-wing Tory and friend of Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, as he built up his media holdings in Britain, he switched his loyalties to “New Labour” when he saw that Tony Blair could provide a fresh face for even more reactionary politics and was more than willing to further Murdoch’s interests in return for editorial backing. He made similar swings in his native Australia between the Labor and Liberal parties to further his efforts at monopolizing the print and broadcast media.
So, it should really come as no surprise that Murdoch is now emerging as a prominent backer of the Democratic US Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The Financial Times of London reported Tuesday that Murdoch will personally host a July fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton on behalf of his News Corp.
CBS News reported on the upcoming fundraiser with the provocative headline “Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton.” It stated, “The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months.”
When she first ran for Senate from New York, Murdoch’s New York Post sought to demonize her as an arch-liberal and was notorious for publishing the most unflattering photographs of the former First Lady. “To vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton is to affirm double-dealing and deception,” one Post editorial warned New Yorkers. A leading columnist referred to her as a “duplicitous sow.” How times have changed.
This will be by no means the first such friendly encounter between the Democratic senator—and frontrunner for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination—and the right-wing media baron. Last month, it was reported that Mrs. Clinton was in attendance at the 10th anniversary party for Murdoch’s Fox News in Washington.
As the Washington Post reported: “Clinton spent an hour at Cafe Milano schmoozing with News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch (very chummy since last year’s truce), Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, and most of the Bush administration, including Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett and former Fox host Tony Snow, just hours after he was named the new Bush spokesman.”
For the last five years, Murdoch’s Fox News has served as the closest thing to a state propaganda network that America has ever seen, unswervingly defending the Bush administration while vilifying its critics. Tony Snow’s transformation from a right-wing Fox talk show host into the head of the White House press office is only the most blatant expression of this politically incestuous relationship.
Murdoch, a reactionary warmonger, used Fox as well as other cable and satellite networks covering five continents and his worldwide chain of 175 newspapers to promote the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and to steadfastly defend both Bush and Blair for launching the war. While insisting that Bush was “acting very morally” in attacking a virtually defenseless country that had offered no provocation, Murdoch was not as reticent as most US politicians in identifying the economic aim of the war: “Once Iraq is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil.”
Fox and other Murdoch news outlets led the media in trumpeting the Bush administration’s lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and terrorist threats, and continues to promote the White House claims—long since rejected by the American people—about “progress” in Iraq.
In New York, Murdoch’s New York Post has given new meaning to the term “gutter press,” promoting the most backward, racist and anti-working class views. During the strike by New York City transit workers last December, the billionaire Murdoch used the paper to call the train and bus workers “greedy” and “rats.” Comparing these workers to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the Post demanded that they be arrested and fired en masse.
Union busting is not just a platonic affair for Murdoch. In 1986, he used mass firings and police violence to crush the British print workers’ union in the Wapping strike. He used similar tactics against striking members of the Newspaper Guild at the New York Post in 1993, firing nearly 300 of them.
Now, Hillary Clinton, whose $20 million campaign fund includes large sums from the unions, including Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 100, will be getting even more money from Murdoch, a veteran union-buster and one of the most prominent advocates of the TWU’s destruction.
Murdoch is if nothing else a good judge of character. He can sniff out a politician who lacks any principles, whose views and votes are for sale. Support from such elements—in Australia, Britain the US and elsewhere—has played a decisive role in his amassing a multibillion-dollar fortune.
Having watched Hillary Clinton vote for and support the Iraq war and curry favor with the Republican right (as she and husband Bill accumulated their own multimillion-dollar fortune), he likes what he sees. Moreover, the Australian-born press baron can read opinion polls as well as anyone else. With Bush’s approval rating falling below the one-third mark, there is ample reason for him to start hedging his political bets.
In the midst of the Republican impeachment drive over the Monica Lewinsky affair, Hillary Clinton accurately described the forces mobilized to oust her husband from the White House as a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Fox News, and many of those whom Murdoch has assembled to craft its ideological line as well as that of his other media outlets—the New York Post and the Weekly Standard, for example—played a prominent role in this conspiracy.
Mrs. Clinton has long since distanced herself from the bluntly accurate description of these forces that she offered eight years ago. The fact is that those who hatched the conspiracy now have a grip on all the essential levers of power in Washington, and Hillary Clinton is collaborating closely with them.
The budding alliance between Rupert Murdoch and Hillary Clinton provides the most graphic proof that the Democrats offer no means whatsoever to oppose the ultra-right policies of the Republican administration in Washington. Democratic politicians like Clinton are willing accomplices of the Bush White House, supporting both militarism abroad and the attacks on basic democratic rights and social conditions at home.
Whatever their tactical political differences, both parties are committed to defending the interests of the US corporate and financial ruling elite. That is why Rupert Murdoch is confident that he can achieve his ends by backing Hillary Clinton just as well as he did through his fulsome support for George W. Bush.

a right to go to college

I am somewhat undecided on a statement made in class today that going to college is not a right but rather a privilege. On one hand I feel that going to college is right because it is something that anyone can do (with hard work and effort) however I do understand that privileges are earned (the hard work and effort it takes to go to college). Every individual has the right to go to high school (according to US law it is a requirement until one is 16); even if one school won’t accept an individual, another one must (whether public or private). It is requirement but because anyone can go to almost any school (except private schools in some cases); it is also an undeniable right. College, on the other hand, is not always a right. In some cases, it may be very easy to get into college. Community colleges demand far fewer application requirements than private colleges and even many private colleges will accept students who have dropped out of high school or who had poor grades. I consider going to college a right because anyone can go if they put in the work required to gain admission. The "if", however, is what challenges the idea of college being a right, defining it rather as more of a privilege. If a person has to work in order to gain a right, it is not truly a right. An 18 year old does not have to work to gain the right to vote, they are just allowed to do it. So I suppose I feel that it is a right to apply to college and privilege to attend.
Originally I was highly offended by the idea of saying that going to college is a privilege because I thought only of the element of the definition of privilege that says that a privilege is a gift. I was offended that anyone would say that getting into college is simply a gift; I thought about all the hard work I did to get into college, all the applications to schools and for financial aid--for me, I was not simply gifted with an education, I worked for it. However, I neglected the part of the definition that says that a privilege is a gift that results from effort (good behavior, hard work, etc). The work and effort I put in to get into college was rewarded with admission; I was therefore privileged and given the right to an education that cannot be taken away from me unless I do something to force the administrators to take it away from me.