Andrew Griffin :-(

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that four to sixteen percent of all children are victim to some kind of abuse or neglect. These numbers are probably on the low side as many cases are never reported. One horrible and unforgivable act of abuse is that of Andrew Griffin. Andrew died at the age of two on December 26, 2007, was murdered actually. His parents have been found guilty and are awaiting sentencing for the second degree murder charges of Andrew. The beautiful baby boy was just two months shy of his third birthday weighing in at about 13 pounds, which is actually the average weight of a three to six month old. After an autopsy was completed it was found that Andrew starved to death. Although starvation was the cause of death there was plenty of evidence to prove he was badly abused for some time. He had bruises old and new all over his body. He had new cuts and scrapes however did not walk yet. He even had new sores on the soles of his feet and bed sores behind his ears. Yes, bed sores, something that you see in many older patients from laying in bed too long. He was compared to as a Holocaust victim.
This is a situation that is without a doubt extreme, but how did it get this bad. This family had four other children and apparently some family and friends that had seen Andrew within weeks of being carried into the hospital cold and blue. The father of the child claims that his wife was always frustrated with the children and that Andrew was the only one she could control. He said that she kept Andrew in their room most of the time. He knew what was going on and just chose not to get involved. How could someone just turn the other way while their own child is slowly dying?
Had someone who had seen this little boy, a friend, a family member, a sibling, spoken up this child may still be alive today. This now raises a bigger question; why didn’t a sibling speak up? There are four other children in this family, have they ever expressed a worry to anyone about their brother. Did anyone take them seriously? Or did they not speak up because it was keeping the abuse away from them? Survival of the fittest within the family. Did any of the holiday visitors not have concern for this child that was obviously not up to par? Or did they just choose not to make their lives any busier than they already were?
Whether it is child abuse, domestic abuse, harassment, or the school yard fight, why are we still in that place where we turn around and let things happen that can be stopped? Have we not learned to have any more compassion than some members our previous generations had? Are we that involved in our own lives that we can allow such things happen?

The Nature Of Celebrity Scandal

The Nature Of Celebrity Scandal:


Celebrities come back from scandal all the time, but chris brown's arrest in the assault of singer rihanna might be a different matter.Brown and Rihanna were both absent from the Grammy Awards on Sunday after Brown was charged with beating Rihanna, who has since canceled her public appearances.There are more pressing matters in this whole mess than whether the 19-year-old pop star Brown will be able to resume his career. But the question does highlight the interesting nature of celebrity scandal and what fans are willing to forgive."It's going to be more different than all the other people who have disgraced themselves because they've only hurt themselves," says Sandy DuMont, an image consultant.

Will Chris Brown's image forever be tainted after his Feb. 8 arrest on assault charges?Yes, people will always associate him with this incident No, time will pass and people will forget

Domestic assault is a particularly egregious crime. But others have rebounded from it. Eminem, for instance, was not only arrested for hitting his ex-wife; he also sang about killing her. Charlie Sheen's pleading no contest to assaulting his girlfriend in 1997 didn't end the actor's career.But Brown's case differs from those partly because his success is based largely on his clean-cut image.Also, the victim, Rihanna, is herself famous and has even more fans than Brown. The closest examples might be those of Ike Turner(who assaulted Tina Turner, then his wife) and Bobby Brown, who assaulted his wife, Whitney Houston"And you know who went on to receive the fame and fortune," DuMont says. "It was Tina, not Ike."An added strike against Chris Brown is that he's still a relatively new celebrity, DuMont says, and "hasn't been on the scene long enough to get in everyone's hearts."But Robert Thompson, who studies pop culture at Syracuse University, says the nature of celebrity is surprisingly resilient."Some scandals you absolutely can't come back from," he says. "O.J. is probably one, and probably Michael Jackson."But "in a scary kind of way," he says, Brown's case "is becoming kind of a cliché" and the singer might be able to recover from it."It's amazing how quickly these things can be apologized for and mea-culpaed," he says. "There are certain ways that this story could be managed. So I wouldn't count him out at this point."

will stars ever get what the should when they do something wrong..? you hear all these stories and see all this scandal, but do they ever truley get what the deserve?

Will the war really end in a year???

So i was reading this about the war ending by Aug 2010, it would be a great thing, but will it ever happen? let me know what you all think...


Obama's Troop Drawdown Decision Will End Iraq War in Late 2010,
Obama told top leaders in Congress on Thursday that he will transition the mission in Iraq to training, advising and engaging in limited counter-terrorist operations.

The Iraq war will come to an end on Aug. 31, 2010, senior officials said, following President Obama's decision to end all counter-insurgency missions by that time.
Obama told top leaders in Congress on Thursday that he will transition the mission in Iraq to training, advising and engaging in limited counter-terrorist operations, according to congressional sources.
The president is expected to deliver a speech Friday at the Marine base in Camp Lejeune, N.C, in which he will order the immediate drawdown of the 142,000 Marines and Army personnel in Iraq.
Obama's decision reflects his belief that "there have been real advances" in the country and, as result, the U.S. military should now be ordered to carry out "a fundamental change in mission," senior administration officials said.
With 142,000 U.S. forces in Iraq now and counter-insurgency operations conducted on a near-daily basis, "it is a war, no question," a senior adviser said.
And this war, senior officials said, will officially come to an end on Aug. 31, 2010, when the president orders all U.S. troops to focus their efforts on advising, equipping and training Iraqi security forces as well as assisting in reconstruction and political reconciliation.
"This is a plan that responsibly ends the war in Iraq," said a senior official who participated in the deliberations. "He is living up to a commitment he made as a candidate but is doing so in a way that has the support of the inter-agency task force on Iraq."
The president will order U.S. military commanders to leave a residual force of between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq. Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, the U.S. must remove all military personnel by Dec. 31, 2011.
The move reflects the consensus plan presented to Obama by Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top military commander in Iraq; Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the president's top intelligence officials.
"This is not a political calculation," a senior official said. "This is a plan the president believes will advance U.S. national security interests. This is not a plan that just hopes we can get to a spot. This really represents a meeting of the minds. This is really a big project for an entirely different mission."
The president reached his decision after 12 advisory group meetings on Iraq and 10 inter-agency meetings since Inauguration Day. The first Iraq advisory meeting occurred at the White House Jan. 21.
Obama intends to convey his decision about U.S. troop withdrawals by telephone to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki on Friday. Scheduling conflicts prevented the two leaders from speaking by phone Thursday, officials said. The president and his advisers have kept the Iraqi civilian leadership informed about internal U.S. deliberations on troop withdrawals, administration officials said.
The president decided to order the troop withdrawals on Wednesday.
Obama told lawmakers about his decision on Thursday. He told lawmakers the troops remaining in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, will carry out new missions and will be trained and organized in a way that de-emphasizes combat-readiness and intensifies the focus on these three missions:
-- Train, equip and advise Iraqi security forces
-- Support civilian operations in Iraq aimed at reconstruction, redevelopment and political reconciliation
-- Conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions
To underscore the president's desire to end combat and counter-insurgency missions, officials said after Aug. 31, 2010, there will be no brigade combat teams or brigade combat teams in Iraq. There are 14 brigade combat teams in Iraq now. The remaining troops will be "reconstituted," officials said, into "advisory and assistance brigades."
Even so, if security conditions in Iraq deteriorate in the coming months the president "retains the flexibility" to slow down or reverse troop withdrawals. Officials said Obama's drawn-down is unlikely to jeopardize security gains achieved as a result of the Bush administration surge that has seen a significant reduction in terrorist-inspired and insurgent-led violence in Iraq.
A portion of the 35,000 to 50,000 remaining troops will be combat-ready and will be ready to deploy in counter-terrorism missions. That means combat operations are still possible, even after Aug. 31, 2010, an official said. Senior officials would not say how large the counter-terrorism force will be, but said it would be well under half the remaining troop strength.
"There will be a capability left to engage in targeted counter-terrorism operations," the official said, calling the this capability "a prudent part of the puzzle."
Overall, the size of the remaining U.S. force was "driven by the mission," officials said. U.S. troops will begin leaving Iraq this spring and the numbers of returning troops will grow during the summer, officials said. A sizable number of troops will remain in Iraq, however, to provide security and training as the country prepares for regional and sub-regional elections this spring and national elections in December.

After all of this will it really happen? can we as americans truly trust that the war that has control and taken over most of our lives really being coming to a end....i hope so i would love to see all of these family's put back together, and for us as U.S. citzins to FINALLY be able to go back to our ways and not worry anymore :)

Bioengineered Crops

Since foods made of or contain bioengineered crops were introduced on the market about a decade ago, they have generated a great deal of controversies. These controversies focus on potential health and environmental risks. On one hand, supporters of genetically modified (GM) technology argue that biotech crops can bring about a lot of benefits. These benefits include pesticides, herbicides, drought resisting plants and can potentially relieve hunger and poverty in the world. On the other hand, their opponents contend that bioengineered crops have not been studied enough, may be harmful to humans, and can contaminate other varieties of crops. Because drawbacks of biotech crops may well outweigh the benefits, let’s closer consider the points proposed by opponents of GM technology.
Since the bioengineered crops are relatively new, there is no way of knowing the overall long-term effect of them on human health. Even genetic engineers cannot definitely predict all possible effects of introducing new genes into organisms, given that the genetic makeup is very complex. The introduced gene may act differently when working within its new host than it has worked in a donor. This is especially true when genes from different species are being mixed. Hence, the new combination of the host genes and the introduced genes may have unpredictable consequences, including generating harm to human, in addition to its desired effects.
Another concern is that biotech crops can contaminate conventional crops. This can occur simply by pollen being windblown from one field to another. Undoubtedly, this process represents a threat to the future safety and security of the food supply and the environment in general. If herbicide-resistant genes from GM crops drift to other traditionally grown plants, they may spread to weeds species as well, making them immune to herbicides and, as a result, creating super-weeds. Since the scientific community has not come up with a method by which they can recall this process, biological pollutants may multiply and spread, resulting in inevitable changes in the environment.
New GM technology is surely bright with promises, but also filled with unknown and possibly very significant risks in the future. Regardless of the safety concerns and potential dangers of biotech crops, their production is rapidly moving into the market, replacing products made of conventionally grown crops.

Blue Eyed (1996)

As I watch the movie Blue Eyed along with the textbook chapter related to race, I could find that they both have the same message - Despite of devoted effort to end racism, discrimination, segregation, prejudice and stereotypes of race, gender, sexuality, age, and disability, it seems the caste perspective would stay just as before, without any major change – which they are trying to educate indirectly.
In Blue Eyed, Jane Elliott, a pioneer in racism awareness training, approach to diversity training in her unique way. She reverses treatments white and people of color receive; she actually makes whites be treated just as people of color would be treated, are being treated, or have been treated as. Jane Elliott said, in the movie, that white people do not realize that they are not treating everyone the same, while they do not want colored people to come to live in their town. They could finally realize how they were treating people of color, after physically and emotionally experiencing via the exercise prepared by Jane, and she made sure if they realized it by asking if anyone would choose to be black.
What I agreed with in the film is the unique ideas of actually experiencing what people of color have been treated as throughout a life. It is obvious that white people are known as dominant group which has major power within the society, while other people are categorized as subordinate group which is below where whites belong. Starting from the social distance between whites and people of color, people of color often experience either individual or institutional discrimination in a society by white people who would not even realize themselves as discriminators. Because of that important reason, Jane Elliott has been running the exercise, targeting white people to change. She sees the problem as solvable by white people.
What I disagreed with in the film is that she only sees one side of the problem – white people – to be solved, not the both sides together. Because she tries to solve the problem by changing white people`s thoughts or attitudes, she stands on people of color`s side and act rude and mean to white people during the workshop, pretending that they are being treated as same as people of color normally do. Some whites would realize how inequitable they have been to the people of color, but some would think the exercise as bias about whites and get mad – which will not help, but get worse. In fact, Jane Elliott has told that she has been attacked indirectly by white protestors through her family. We need to realize that we are living in an ethnic pluralism.

Racism

I would love it if everyone would take the time to read this article. When you do, I want you to keep in mind the issue of Race. The events in this article take place in Mississippi, a place often associated with racism. Having lived in Mississippi for the majority of my life, I can honestly say that Mississippi does still have issues with race. Not the whole state mind you, but certain regions and isolated populations. George County is in the extreme south east portion of the state. If I were to say, and I am no authority, this area (not including the Gulf Coast region) along with the delta (extreme north west region of the state) still have extreme racial tendencies.

Given this background information, as you read the article, I want you to mentally count how many times you think about race..

Prep star's death ruled accident; family not convinced
By Greg Jenson, The Clarion Ledger via AP

A grand jury report into the death of George County (Lucedale, Miss.) running back Billey Joe Johnson Jr. concluded Thursday the recruit shot himself by accident with his 12-gauge shotgun during a traffic stop..
While his family was relieved his death was no longer being ruled a suicide, the report left unanswered questions, said Jerome Carter, the family's attorney.
"I ain't buying (the grand jury ruling)," Johnson's mother, Annette, said at the George County Courthouse. "We are going further and we are going higher."
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said it would submit its evidence to the U.S. Justice Department and seek a federal probe.
Johnson, a 5-11, 220-pound junior who ran for 1,559 yards and 24 touchdowns last season and was receiving interest from Alabama, Mississippi and LSU, among others, died on Dec. 8, 2008, in Lucedale.
The circumstances surrounding the death of the black teen led his family and the local chapter of the NAACP to question a white deputy's role in the death.
According to the grand jury report, Johnson, 17, left his home before dawn to go deer hunting but made an unexpected visit to the home of an ex-girlfriend and tried to wake her by tapping on her window. Her family called 911 and reported a burglary. After hearing sirens, Johnson drove away but was stopped by Lucedale police deputy Joe Sullivan, who said Johnson ran a red light. When Sullivan went to his vehicle to check on Johnson's license, the report said, Johnson tried to move his shotgun in the cab portion of his truck and accidentally discharged a blast into the left side of his head.
When other officers arrived, Johnson was on the ground outside of the driver's side door with a shotgun on top of him, the barrel pointing toward his head, police have said.
"The family has a sense of relief that comes from the removal of any criminal wrongdoing on (Johnson's) part or activity related to any alleged burglary," Carter said. "They are still dismayed with what is deemed to be an accidental shooting. They've asked us to remain in the case."
Carter said the family needs to see the same evidence the grand jury, made up of 14 white and two black members, has seen and has been told unofficially by Judge Robert Krebs that the exhibits would be made available. Carter said the biggest question the report didn't answer was why gunpowder residue was found only on Johnson's left hand and why was the gunpowder residue found on Deputy Sullivan's hands deemed insignificant.
"There are too many questions that need to be answered," Carter said. "Our plan is to get all of the information that was to be presented to the grand jury. They used minimizing language in the report about the gunpowder residue on the deputy's hands, but I don't understand why, if he had just reported to work and had not fired his weapon, why would he have gunpowder residue on his hands?"
"It's a tragic accident, and I know it's hard for some people to accept that," county District Attorney Tony Lawrence said.
Contributing: Associated Press

How many times did race come up in this article? A lot, and why shouldn't it? We have a suspicious death involving a black teenager and a white law enforcement officer. We have the involvement of the NAACP. How many noticed the makeup of the Grand Jury? 14 whites and only two blacks.
A lot of the details involved in the case are suspicious for sure, but I didn't want to talk about what may or may not have happened.It's a sad fact that racism is still a major concern in this country. Even if this does turn out to be an accidental death, you can obviously read the bias in the reporter’s language that suggests the possibility of a hate crime. One day the people of this country will wisen up.It is a tragic story. My prayers go out to the family and friends, and everyone affected by this young man’s death.

African Children's Choir

This past Christmas, I was fortunate to attend a holiday show at the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra (BSO). The host was a Grammy Award-winning vocalist, Sandy Patty, and the featured musical guests were a group of African children, simply named the “African Children’s Choir.” Watching the children perform was really the highlight of the show. The professional singers and musicians of the show were great. However, watching those little children perform was something to behold. But I had many questions buzzing in my mind. When we arrived to the BSO, I felt like I arrived at John McCain’s Republican Nomination Rally. You know… the one where you heard folks describe the audience as being a sea of the same “old, white, conservatives…” with no diverse group being represented in the rally. What does this have to do with anything? Well since I didn’t know what to expect at the show, every single observation, starting from entering the main door, was then being processed in my head. It seems the children, who were anywhere from 6-13 years of age, were orphans picked up by some organization in Africa to be schooled and escape the poverty and despair from their home countries. They are mostly orphans by a direct result of the pandemic disease AIDS. The concept of this organization is take to care of the needs of the children (by schooling, host families and training them vocally in choirs) and then return them to Africa as educated adults (doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc.) to break the chain of poverty that’s going on there. Looking into the gleeful, eager faces of those children I couldn’t help but notice how they assimilated into a whole new world. Touring on major network TV shows such as Dr. Phil, The Ellen Show, and American Idol. It was amazing watching them; given their impoverished background and what they had to endure, and here they were performing for grand audiences. Simply heart-touching.

Chris Brown and Rihanna

I’m going to talk about the Chris Brown and Rihanna situation and how Chris Brown now might be able to go free because someone leaked the photo of Rihanna after Chris beat her. First I’m going to talk about how they got the photo. TMZ sent a lot of people to go get some pix taken of Rihanna immediately after the alleged Chris Brown attack. The person that leaked the photo was a law enforcement insider close to the investigation. He was said to be paid $62500, and that was double the salary of the person suspected of leaking the picture. TMZ also paid a relative or friend of the law enforcement insider in 24 hours of receiving of the photo to cover their tracks. Also there are some legal ramifications to leaking the pic. An unfortunate aspect of the whole incident is not just the total disrespect for the victim, Rihanna, but the legal ramifications related to jury pool pollution the public revelation of this photo obviously has on the possible upcoming criminal case against alleged attacker, Chris Brown. “Brown, even if guilty, could walk free because of the unauthorized release of this photo,” says an LAPD source. Insiders say LAPD brass is “furious, subpeonas have already gone out.”

/Network/Servers/coldir.allenshariff.com/Volumes/Data/Columbia/andu/Desktop/pic 1/Slide01.jpg

Prescription Drug Abuse

     Prescription drugs are not foreign to most people. They can be found almost anywhere in addition to being relatively easy to acquire. Their abundance and convenience are the main reasons for abuse. The most widely abused medicines can be categorized into opioids, CNS depressants, and stimulants. CNS depressants are medicines such as tranquilizers or sedatives for use as sleep aids, while stimulants such as amphetamines are used with ADHD. Opioids of course deal with pain relief. One of the most popular examples right now deals with Dr. Gregory House from Fox's television series "House" and his addiction to the opioid Vicodin. He is a doctor, and is also open about his addiction yet no one has completely stopped him. Is this saying that this type of drug abuse is acceptable? I hope not.

     Doctors are one of the main reasons for prescription drug abuse. After visiting the doctor, more often than not, you end up coming back with some sort of drug. Even if you don't need it, doctors prescribe something in order to satisfy the notion that you came to see them, and you expect to leave with something. This provides the opportunity for people to obtain drugs and sell them, or simply for their own abuse if they choose to. Recently my friend and I were talking about how stupid some of the methods kids are using now to get high when he brought up "pharm parties." Everyone grabs prescription drugs from their houses and throws it in a bowl, then grabs a handful and takes it. It is becoming increasingly popular among teenagers and not enough is being done to combat it. Just because prescription drugs are legal does not make them any less dangerous.

"Tough Love": Good or Bad??

Stemming from the issue of nature vs. nurture comes the topic of “tough love”. In my opinion tough love is when you are not as kind to a person in order to get them to do what you think is right but, in the end your trying to do them a good thing. Most of the time this is seen in parenting. Some parents are very kind and loving to their children while others are maybe more strict and demanding but, also love their kids. In my family for example, my father was more of a “tough love” parent and my mother was the kind and warm one. Sometime my father would make me do things that I really didn’t want to but he would always add “this is for your own good.” Mom on the other hand would always try to console me and I when I didn’t want to do something I would eventually end up convincing her. don’t get me wrong though I know both parents love me :) The question here would be: is tough love really effective or is it too harsh? Personally, I think tough love is a positive thing when used “correctly”. I have a niece and a nephew whom I am constantly with. When my niece was born I would be the kindest person to her. She would always get what she wanted from me and I rarely, if ever, said no. as she got older there were more things I would have to say “no” to and when I did she would have a little tantrum. A while after my nephew was born. I was different with him from the beginning. I would not always give him what he wanted and I wasn’t as “kind” to him (I wasn’t mean I just wasn’t extremely nice). Now when someone says no to him he understands that there is a reason why they said “no” or didn’t let him do what he wanted and he doesn’t react they way my niece did. I believe that “tough love” is very effective. Also tough love, in my opinion, helps you realize that not everything in life is easy and it helps you prepare for how you will have to interact with others in the future. In the end what one is aiming for is their loved ones’ well-being and eventually they will realize that.

Adoption for Homosexual Couples

There are so many children in the world that don't have anywhere to go but into foster care or adoption agencies. Both have their own set of rules and guidelines, which exempt homosexual couples from becoming foster parents or adoptive parents.
My views on this are simple. I believe whether you are in a committed relationship with one from the opposite sex or one from the same sex you should have the same rights. If homosexual couples have all the means of supporting a child, such as, a loving home, and money to feed and clothe a child, just like heterosexual couples do, they should be able to adopt.
There are many people that would disagree with me. But if they don't agree just because they think that homosexual couples are going to raise a child to be homosexual then they need to rethink about it. Heterosexual couples have children all the time, some end up being a heterosexual and some end up being homosexual. It has nothing to do with who or how you are brought up that makes you heterosexual or homosexual, its how the person feels towards the same sex or opposite sex.

illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration has become a serious problem in the United States within the more recent years. There are more than ten million undocumented immigrants that currently live in the U.S. and the number continues to increase by 700,000 a year. The problems that these immigrants have been causing are; they have brought more violence and crime to our country and tax payers are supplying education and health care for them.
Drug trafficking, gangs, and terrorism have all been directly linked to the problem with illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is the source of illegal Mexican drugs. 75% of all cocaine and 40% of all heroin is smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. I’m sure it doesn’t help that the NAFTA agreement allows Mexican truckers free access to America's southern borders, in an effort to speed the transit of manufactured goods between Mexico and the United States. Gangs have also become one of the major threats in illegal immigration. One gang, MS-13, is found in thirty-three states across America, including Los Angeles, Houston, New York, and Washington D.C. They are a highly organized and well funded Central American gang that consists of mostly Salvadorians, Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans. They are known for drug smuggling, gun running, and people smuggling. Terrorism has also been directly linked to illegal immigration. Three out of the four terrorist pilots in the 9/11 attacks were in this country illegally.
Tax payers have been paying for these undocumented aliens to go to school and to be provided with sufficient health care. More than 380,000 “anchor babies”, or babies born to illegal immigrants, were born in the United States in 2005, making these babies automatic U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from these births were paid by the American tax payer. Tax payers have also been paying for ESOL teachers to teach them English and to give them an education.

Octuplets mom with fourteen kids

I still find it hard to believe that a mom who is not maried and doesn't have a reliable source of income could have done such unethical and rediculouse thing. With her being the mother of six previous kids and still living at home with her parents should have been enough reasons why she shouldn't have done such thing. The doctor in question should also be held responsible for his role in this unprecedented event. He should have investigated this mom financial stability, marital status and the host of other critical issues febore even considering to go ahead with what she wanted. Nadya Suleman is the 33 year old mom who cruely and selfishly decide to inplant six of her previosely frozen ebryo eventhough she already had six kids under the age of eight that are on welfare. Eventhough she claimed she's not on welfare, later reports indicates that she has been onwelfare.

In an interview with NBC she said and I quote " I’m providing myself to my children, I’m loving them unconditionally, and accepting them unconditionally. I’ll stop my life for them, and be present with them, and hold them, and be with them.”

This is very nice to hear but the broader question is how is she going to care for them, feed them, clothed them, and provide their basic needs when she is not working? I advise for this craziness is that Nadya goes to seek psychiatric help and some conseling because I have never heared of anything of the sort in my life.

http://www.tv.com/video/nmm163ng52aAfS0921Tw8T8NzPSnfxcl/101/1091/octuplet-mom-andlsquoall-i-wanted-was-children?o=hulu

Racist Cartoon Shamelessly Run in NY Post

Speaking of race, here’s the cartoon that appeared this week in the New York Post. Most people, including many elected officials in New York, journalists, and others, reacted negatively to the cartoon, citing its racist overtones and insensitivity towards the historical depictions of blacks (and Japanese, Vietnamese, and Chinese, as an aside) as “closer” to other primates than whites. The Post issued an “apology” that neither really apologized, nor explained the true intention of the cartoon, although they did insist the intention was not to depict President Obama as a chimpanzee- or one shot dead by police, at that. The Post also criticized Al Sharpton’s objections to the cartoon, calling him a “publicity opportunist”. Yet, the stark absence of an alternative explanation for the cartoon leaves many wondering what the connection between the wild, violent rampage of a chimp kept as a pet in Connecticut and the drafting and passage of the financial stimulus bill this week in Congress … if not a barely-veiled, violent, racist jab or threat towards Obama.

Why is the Post unwilling to acknowledge the content, the meaning, or the fact that it has widely offended many people? How does the Post’s lack of apology prevent us from questioning its fairly overt racism? How does their criticism of Sharpton reflect their true beliefs about race and their attempt to silence Sharpton’s voice on the issue? Does this cartoon reflect our collective racial attitudes? What effect do images like this have on the stereotypes that are deeply embedded within us?

Violence.

Violence against women.

With all the magazine stand articles and entertainment tonight shows ranting about the recent incident with singer Rihanna and Chris Brown, it's hard not to think about how far he went and what the real story is. However, when push comes to shove, how far will women go for the name of love? If you don't know the story, apparently Chris Brown hit Rihanna in a domestic dispute between the famous couple. It was on the night of the grammy's. She went to the hospital with visible marks and a black eye. Rihanna cancelled her grammy preformance. Nearly one in three adult women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. How common is violence againt women getting? Abused women are twice as likely as non-abused women to have poor health and physical and mental problems, even if the violence happened years before. This needs to stop! My question is this, what posseses Chris Brown to think that this was okay to do? What influences did the media have on this 19 year old man? Is the way that rap artists portray women affecting the way certain people view women? Reffering to them as "ho's" certainly makes them feel like nothing.

-Researchers estimate that between one-million and four-million women suffer nonfatal violence from an intimate partner every year.
-Men who have witnessed their parents domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their own wives compared to children of non violent parents.
-More than 50% of batterers also abuse their children or their victim's children.
I feel that adolescent's should be taught how serious this problem is in public schools. Young men and women learn the importance of safe sex in public schools, so why not safe relationships? How many women need to suffer from physical and mental problems before this issue is really addressed? My hope is that this incident with Chris Brown and Rihanna will finally open everyones eyes and learn that this is not normal and can really cause a lot of pain and sorrow.

Michael Phelps Marijuana Use: Michelle Verbus

The 8 time Olympic Medal champion Michael Phelps was caught taking hits of a bong filled with marijuana in 2008 while visiting a college campus. Someone had taken a picture of this happening and was paid to have this picture published in a newspaper in England. The site of this picture was a huge shock to Phelps fans around the world. Not only did this action effect Phelps career but it also helps to show others that not only is he an Olympic champion but he is also a human who makes mistakes just like everyone else.



There are many different approaches and ways to look at this issue. Smoking weed is illegal in the United States and you can get in serious trouble for breaking this law. Many parents these days to not want their kids doing drugs and drinking alcohol. When celebrties make actions like this and they get announced in the public is just makes it okay for other people to behave in this mannor. Many kids think to themselves well if someone famous is doing it then it must be okay. Many college students these days are into partying and getting into illegal activities. As time goes on partying and outrageous behavior is becoming more popular.



I don't think that when Michael Phelps decided to make this decision he thought it was going to be this big of a deal. The reality of this situation is that Phelps is an adult and is going to make his own decisions. Many people smoke weed everyday without the consequences that Phelps has had to go through. When your around 20 years of age most people make many decisions that they are not proud of and eventually learn from. Hopefully in this situation Micheal Phelps will learn from it and move on with his life. The sad part from making this decision he lost about 8 million dollars worth of sponsorship. I'm just happy that I don't have people watching my every move like a hawk and judging me for the decisions I make. My question is would you rather not be famous and be able to make decisions as you please and not have to worry about publicity or be famous and have to deal with something like this inncident.

Healthcare Hellhole

I have been a smoker for a while now, not going to give that specific of a number seeing as though I already feel old enough in our class. I recently went to the doctors to try the new wonder drug Chantix. I had a hard time getting into the doctors because I had an HMO and apparently there were only two doctors in the Columbia area that were taking new patients towards the end of 2008. I settled for the one closest to my house. Upon my first visit she walks in, feels my throat, checks my ears and nose, tells me my blood pressure is wonderful and that I "have hit the age where I need to watch it". She immediately tells me that I have a growth on my thyroid which could be cancerous and have to have a number of blood tests, an ultrasound and make an appointment with an endocrine surgeon right away. Keep in mind that I had to return to office every time a result came in because it needed to reviewed in person. A month and one hundred and forty dollars in co-pays later I find out that yes I have a small goiter (which is absolutely no concern) and never did get or even ask for the Chantix. A few weeks later I begin to receive the explanation of benefits from my insurance company. Although I had only paid $140.00, My insurance company had paid thousands of dollars for no good reason.

After this incident and a few other minor ones I decided to go back to my old doctor which required me to change to a PPO. This would mean picking any doctor I wanted to see without approval from my insurance company. That same week I called the doctor of my choice and was told that they are no longer accepting insurance and would be requesting a FIVE THOUSAND dollar annual enrollment fee. I don't know about the rest of you in this class but I pay enough to have good insurance coverage and to add another five thousand to that figure just seemed ridiculous to me. Now here I stand with "better" insurance as far as the doctors offices are concerned and still can't see a doctor.

Where am I trying to go with this little story of my insurance issue? There are two main issues here, the doctor that would not scare me with cancer in the first five minutes of meeting me was out of reach because at the time I had an HMO. How can doctors decide that they are just too good to help everyone? They just make themselves available to only wealthier patients. How is that not prejudice? Yet the doctor that I was almost forced to see wasn't concerned with me. Because she makes less money from the insurance company on patients with HMO insurance she was more concerned with exactly how much money and how many fees and tests her office could be paid on. My big question, if I am having this hard of a time and I have decent insurance, what are people doing with no insurance? They are forced to use emergency rooms as their primary care physicians. Hospitals are becoming increasingly overcrowded with many individuals that ultimately cannot not afford to pay the bill when all is said and done. This then will effect our insurance once again because hospitals and such will demand more money from the insurance companies to make up for other unpaid bills. This in turn increases the cost for an individual to obtain insurance at an affordable price. It is one big circle of mess. I wouldn't even know where to begin to fix any of it.

Stimulus Check: Round Two

Although the first stimulus bill approved by former president George Bush gave Americans cash, it also gave them a sense of false hope. I mean he [George Bush] gave out $700 billion dollars just so everyone can cut $1,000 dollars off of whatever debt they already owe. The end product was still a withering economy, no jobs, and even more debt.

When I first heard about the basic plan of this bill I thought it was a great idea. I mean you get the money, you go out and shop until you drop, then all these stores go back in the positive and start hiring more people which in turn puts more money out into the market. So this sounds great on paper, but in reality I knew it would fail. Simply because mans basic instinct is survival and not economic revival. So if you have an outstanding debt, then you WILL chip away at it rather than spend money shopping to try and boost an economy. I don't blame the American people for taking the money, mainly because I benefitted from the stimulus too, but rather I think the money would've been better used in creating more jobs. Now with that said, there are plans now for creating more eco-friendly jobs. This is what you call a two-fer. You create more jobs and you help the environment. We desperately need to help the environment too, but that's another subject for a later time.

So all in all, for President Obama to pass the second stimulus is still questionable in my mind, but I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. I honestly hope the economy gets better through this stimulus, but I just don't see it happening.

Genetics Vs Social Enviroments

I don’t really know that much about sociology until the first day of the class. I always want to know about people’s behaviors, why do some change their behaviors day after day? I understand anybody could face a good day the next day could be a horrible day. I believe its most like because of the social environment or their lives could let them face certain challenging that affects them socially. Therefore; which I learned many things the first day the class that makes me realized how much it opens my eyes to see myself in and with different point of perspective people behaviors. However; I have different personality than everyone in my family. I have many things that make me I am part of the family, but I still believe each individually has her/his own that makes her/his different or unique from others.
From sociology class I learned that people learn things from others by socialization internalizing values with others and from families? Even though I agree with this statement I still I have some disagreement with genetics. I am not disagreeing 100%, but I always have questions about genetics that I never quite understand. I believe that genetics don’t always work perfect. When I say this I am not talking about DNA I am talking about how person behaviors or his/her characteristics that shapes her/his to go beyond their genetics. That led them to have some kind of character they are inside and outside. I also believe that kids learn many things from their family, friends, and environment until they know who they really want to be. But does this affect them who they are inside and outside? Which one is more influences them more as who they are inside or outside?
Nevertheless; when one of my classmates was talking about how her sister is different from the rest of the family. That makes me to think about genetics I had in my mind because genetics don’t makes us how me see things or how we approach and value things different way than our family. When sometimes some people show phenomenon behaviors others see that it’s because of her/his family. No it’s not because of the family it’s because of who we are chosen to be. In fact when we see some inadequate behaviors we mostly like we get it from the environmental factors we live in, whether it positive or negative. And it’s because how we process which each things we learn and internalize the values and norms we think it fit who we are. I know genetics, social life, environments play a large roles part of how we behaviors and how act. But which one is most character impact human’s behavior, environment or genetics? Also do they pass those behaviors to their next generation, and which one do they pass the negative or positive one?

The Secret Society of Self-Injury

There are “50 signs” of mental illness; here are a few of them: anger, anxiety, appetite disturbances, confusion, depression, mood swings, panic, stress, and self-mutilation. Who hasn’t felt one or many of these emotions at one time or another? In moderation, these for the most part are normal emotions. But, what happens when these emotions overtake a person? There are many aspects of mental illness that may be explored, but the secretive, impulse control disorder that I have chosen to talk about is self-mutilation. Self- mutilation is an exceptionally complicated disorder, which is not only incredibly difficult to diagnose, but becoming quite prevalent among the youth of the U.S.
More often than not this particular disorder going hand and hand with another mental illness. Bi-polar, borderline personality disorder, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia are the most common accompanying disorders to self-mutilation. Due to the fact that diagnosing this disorder is such a long and pain-staking process, the trust between patient and physician or therapist is a vital part of the process. In the majority of cases an individual will do anything and everything in their power to hide this disorder. To an untrained eye, many indicators of self-mutilation will go undetected.
The actions included in this illness are cutting, burning, scratching, head banging, bone breaking, and picking of the skin, such behaviors are done in a compulsive manner. They feel the compulsion to inflict pain upon themselves to relieve stress, anger, fear, emptiness, and sadness. Many of these persons feel relief and a sense of peace after inflicting an injury upon themselves. Warning sign that someone may be engaging in self-injury are: wearing long sleeves and/or pants in warm weather, low self esteem, difficulty handling emotions, problems with relationships, poor functioning in everyday life, and have a razor, lighter, or any sharp object that one would not expect to see in a person’s belongings.
Treatment for this particular illness may consist of psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, post-traumatic stress therapy, group therapy, family therapy, hypnosis, and medication. The prognosis for a person that self-mutilates varies, for every person, with the psychological state of the person being the most influential factor. The other mental illnesses which accompany self-injury also play a part in prognosis. Unfortunately this disorder is rapidly growing throughout the United States, at an alarming rate. Information on self-injury is becoming more accessible, but there is still a plethora of facts we have yet to learn. Education and awareness are the best tools we have to inform the residence of the communities where we live to help raise awareness and help people better understand self-mutilation.

A cry to a blinded society

"Economic Slavery"

" Slavery is a dictative condition where one human being declares ownership to another".... think about it....

My outburst is not to old slavery. Neither is it about race, religion or national orign..NO! It's more contemporary and lives with us today. Society is so blinded by the urge to make profits and get wealthier that the injustices against its members is not only overlooked and justified, but almost deemed a norm. Consider this.....

.....Every time you succumb to the temptation of your sweet tooth an eat a chocolate candy bar, somewhere in west Africa, a child is working cocoa farms from sunrise to sunset for about 25 cents a day or no pay in some cases.....poor working conditions, no healthcare, just t name a few...

.......Every time you buy a pair of expensive trendy shoes or clothes...somewhere in the US, a sweat shop is run employing illegal immigrants for less than minimum wage and no benefits as they pursue happiness in "the land of milk and honey"

.......Every time you take a breath, somewhere in Thailand, sex slaves are auctioned to the highest bidder....children as young as 8 are usually preferred by underground pedophiles who travel internationally to satisfy their sick desires.....Women are used as maids serving anywhere from basic to sexual needs.....

These soul-destroying brutality is not only unacceptable, but inhuman! I am not telling you not to eat a candy bar or wear the latest Nike shoes.....No....there are some legitimate manufacturers out there and organizations like the UN, UNICEF, WHO just to name a few who are trying to stop these atrocities........just be aware....open your eyes!

Influence of the Media

The contemporary society in the United States is exposed to numerous commercials and advertisements daily. Whether the source of advertising is television, magazine, or newspaper, it has certain influences on consumers. These every-day influences in turn contribute to cumulative effects of the media. Some of the cumulative effects undermine both individuals and society as a whole.

One of the cumulative effects of the media is the development of eating disorders among adolescent girls. The media, in particular the advertising industry, regularly presents ideal body images to advertise different kinds of products. Adolescents, especially teenage girls, are drawn to that ideal image and strive for that ideal image by either starving themselves or inducing vomiting. As a result, many of them develop eating disorders.

Unequal gender representation is another cumulative effect of the media. While portraying the male image as being dominant and ruling and the female image as not more than objects of lust and sexual desire, advertising creates a world where there is no equality between men and women. In her movie Killing Us Softly (2002), Jean Kilbourne carefully examines and analyzes the role of advertising in gender representation and its influence on the public.

Another cumulative effect is the emerging of new values and concept success imposed by the advertising industry. To promote and sell products, advertising creates an ideal world where people are always healthy, wealthy, beautiful, and sexual. Consumers frequently believe that they can construct this ideal world around them if they surround themselves with the products being advertised. As a result, people very often buy products which they really do not need.

No doubt, the media, with advertising as a form of it, has a strong social influence on the public. It has a huge potential to inform and educate people, as well as to control them. With constantly increasing exposure to the media, messages being communicated to people should be thoroughly monitored.

Nature versus Nurture?

How much of who we are is determined by our genes or biology? How much of who we are is determined by our environment, including where and how we live and how we interact with those around us? While the question of nature versus nurture is unanswerable in many respects, it strongly influences how we see ourselves and others. It helps us explain traits and behaviors, which has consequences for how we treat each other.

Science does allow us to determine the extent to which we inherit certain traits and behaviors using twin studies. Since twins who are raised together often have fully shared genetic material and highly shared environments and experiences, it would still be difficult to attribute similarities among twins to either nature or nurture. But, when twins are reared apart, this provides an ideal way of studying whether nature or nurture matters more.

Traits like eye color and blood type are predominantly genetic, while language (what language one speaks) and culture are predominantly environmental. While we tend to think of traits like height and weight as genetically determined, the full expression of how tall we are and how much we weight as adults depends also on our diet, physical activity, and other variables we experience throughout childhood and adulthood.

The questions about whether certain behaviors are biological or environmentally determined raises lots of other interesting questions. For example, if perpetrating violence were found to be genetic, what would this imply that we should do about people who are biologically more likely to commit violent acts? On the other hand, if perpetrating violence were found to be a socialized behavior, how might we change the way we socialize children and adults to prevent violence? How would we respond to people committing violent acts- would we imprison them to be punished, enroll them in therapy, or teach them about anger management?

This question becomes more salient when we consider the roles of mental health and mental illness in crime. When someone commits a really terrible act of violence, we often say that they are ‘bad’ people and they can’t be helped. We might also want them completely removed out of society. This implies that they can’t be ‘fixed,’ and that their permanent state is to be immoral or violent. Many mental health challenges that may lead to violent acts (bipolar disorder, for example) are caused by neural imbalances (biological) combined with early trauma or abuse. Treatments that address the biological causes (medication) and the environmental causes (therapy) can be very successful, which implies that perhaps we can help alleviate the negative impact of such disorders. Certainly, the vast majority of people who do have mental health problems or trauma experience do not commit violent crimes. So, are people who commit violent acts products of unfortunate circumstances instead of inherently bad people? Thinking about how our society treats criminals and people with mental health problems, which side of the nature/nurture debate do we seem to believe more in regard to violent crime?

The nature/nurture question is also being utilized by those for and against gay rights. Those who oppose gay rights say being gay is a choice. Those who are for gay rights say that gays and lesbians are born that way. How do these two attributions help support their respective views? Will finding out whether being gay is biological or environmental end the debate over gay rights? If ‘they’re born that way,’ should gay marriage be legal? If ‘it’s a choice,’ should it be illegal?

This debate also raises questions about how much support parents need to successfully raise children and how much of a role communities and societies should play in rearing children. How much of our behavior do we believe is dictated by biology/genetics, social influences, and free will? In class, we will talk about the moral and ethical problems associated with ‘biological determinism,’ the idea that biology determines our behavior.

Which behaviors do you think are biologically-based? Which ones are learned? How do you think a person who lacked human interaction during early years of life would be as an adult?

Something odd

I can't believe I'm writing such a far out subject as the first paragraph post, but I can't think of anything else to write about!!! I'm very unsure of the boundaries and subjects as to which we are supposed to write these posts, so excuse me if I ramble. I asked my friend for help on what to write about, and he is an avid alien believer. Before I met him I really never thought either way about whether aliens exist. It's known as such a "weird" subject to think about, so I just accepted that it is a possibility but I could never know for sure so I needn't think on it. After he brought it up a couple times, I started to think a little more. Why is it such a negative feedback for aliens? I'd seen him mention subjects like this and other such theories to people at parties as an interesting conversation, who would respond like it was too much for them to even think about. What social thing is this? I figure it could be a common waryness of the unknown in people, or it could be religious. And what is religion to do with aliens, since it doesnt fit and we have this social ritual that is thousands of years old. I don't think something that socially ingrained can be forgotten so easily for science. I consider aliens part of science, since by aliens I don't just mean little green men from mars, I mean even bacteria. Bacteria is small, but it is still alien life! I also don't mean in any way that religion is all bad with science, since it's always changing and it really brings people together. It's just that people might not know how to think of aliens in the same picture as their religion. Or, maybe, it's just a really strange subject.