"Regulations on the Cosmetic Industry" by Kendra is a really eye opening post about the cosmetic industry and the lack of regulations the government puts on potentially harmful substances that we use on our bodies. I had no idea that simple every day things that are basically essential to your hygiene could actually be really harmful to you. It appalls me that the government takes no stand in this issue and doesn't even have standards that the products must meet to be sold in stores.
Kendra makes a really good argument about this subject and I agree with her ideas completely. She even includes multiple website links to back up her argument and a quote from the FDA so that the reader knows all of her information is factual. Overall, its a really interesting topic that more of the population should learn about.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Euthanasia...for People
Jack Kevorkian is a man that I've never heard of before, but stumbled across and happened to find a very interesting story. Just a little background information: Kevorkian was an American pathologist who ultimately tried to convince the government that euthanasia on humans was a humane way to treat "suffering" patients. He treated terminally ill people, but also defined "suffering" as someone who wasn't sick, but desired assisted suicide. In 1999, Kevorkian was convicted of second degree murder in a case of voluntary euthanasia, and served eight years in prison. Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 1998. The story is much more complicated, but this is a basic summary of what occurred.
Something that Kevorkian suggested to prisons (that is more along the lines of something I would agree with) is that the organs of inmates who were scheduled to receive the death penalty be donated to patients awaiting transplants. Prison officials, however, refused this suggestion. He also experimented with transfusing the blood of recently deceased people into healthy people, which was successful. He suggested to The Pentagon that this technique be used for wounded soldiers, but they refused his opinions as well.
This is a pretty sensitive topic I think, and I'm not quite sure if I agree with Kevorkian or not. Should euthanasia be a legal option for terminal patients? I think it could possibly, to an extent. In my opinion, Kevorkian took the idea too far by euthanizing people who were simply depressed or did not have an illness at all. However, this idea might be feasible for (example) people who are in the final stages of cancer or patients who are in a substantial amount of pain.
I believe that, as with any law, this type of thing would need to be strictly monitored and have many, many bullet points as to who, why and how this should be conducted specifically. However, like many regulations, I think it could easily be taken out of hand; the ruling manipulated to fit different cases, such as what happened with Kevorkian. It's a pretty fragile issue and may be ahead of our times.
Something that Kevorkian suggested to prisons (that is more along the lines of something I would agree with) is that the organs of inmates who were scheduled to receive the death penalty be donated to patients awaiting transplants. Prison officials, however, refused this suggestion. He also experimented with transfusing the blood of recently deceased people into healthy people, which was successful. He suggested to The Pentagon that this technique be used for wounded soldiers, but they refused his opinions as well.
This is a pretty sensitive topic I think, and I'm not quite sure if I agree with Kevorkian or not. Should euthanasia be a legal option for terminal patients? I think it could possibly, to an extent. In my opinion, Kevorkian took the idea too far by euthanizing people who were simply depressed or did not have an illness at all. However, this idea might be feasible for (example) people who are in the final stages of cancer or patients who are in a substantial amount of pain.
I believe that, as with any law, this type of thing would need to be strictly monitored and have many, many bullet points as to who, why and how this should be conducted specifically. However, like many regulations, I think it could easily be taken out of hand; the ruling manipulated to fit different cases, such as what happened with Kevorkian. It's a pretty fragile issue and may be ahead of our times.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Blog 6: Criticism
For this task I have chosen to critique a blog entry entitled "Pursuit of Happiness?" written by Josh Kim. I think that his topic for Blog Stage Five was very interesting and there are a few parts that I agree and disagree with, so I would like to discuss them.
First of all, I completely agree with his overall idea that men involved in politics should not have the right to make choices concerning women's bodily rights, such as abortion. The picture used in his article is also pretty cool because it states that 77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, which is an interesting and eye-opening statistic. I also agree with his statement that abortion should, in fact, be a legal option to those that may need it.
The only thing I disagree with in this article is the opinion of the author when the he goes into statistics about the low likely hood of a pregnant young woman finishing her education. (I'm concluding that Josh is for abortion in young women still in high school, college, etc.) Of course it would be an extremely difficult thing for a teenager to try and raise a child while attending school and as unfortunate as these statistics are, I don't think it's right for people to just desire an abortion as soon as they become pregnant. I think that abortions should be legal for people who truly need them, for example rape victims. I don't think that just anyone who chooses to make the irresponsible decision of having unprotected sex should be able to receive an abortion and simply carry on with their life. Though it may be difficult and an immense amount of work, it is possible for a young woman to finish her education and be successful after having a child at a young age, if she so desires.
Other than that minor opinion, I completely agree with Josh on everything else he argues for in his article; it's a really well thought out, well written and informative piece with lots of interesting evidence. : )
First of all, I completely agree with his overall idea that men involved in politics should not have the right to make choices concerning women's bodily rights, such as abortion. The picture used in his article is also pretty cool because it states that 77% of anti-abortion leaders are men, which is an interesting and eye-opening statistic. I also agree with his statement that abortion should, in fact, be a legal option to those that may need it.
The only thing I disagree with in this article is the opinion of the author when the he goes into statistics about the low likely hood of a pregnant young woman finishing her education. (I'm concluding that Josh is for abortion in young women still in high school, college, etc.) Of course it would be an extremely difficult thing for a teenager to try and raise a child while attending school and as unfortunate as these statistics are, I don't think it's right for people to just desire an abortion as soon as they become pregnant. I think that abortions should be legal for people who truly need them, for example rape victims. I don't think that just anyone who chooses to make the irresponsible decision of having unprotected sex should be able to receive an abortion and simply carry on with their life. Though it may be difficult and an immense amount of work, it is possible for a young woman to finish her education and be successful after having a child at a young age, if she so desires.
Other than that minor opinion, I completely agree with Josh on everything else he argues for in his article; it's a really well thought out, well written and informative piece with lots of interesting evidence. : )
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
An Overly Disputed Little Plant
In this blog stage, I would like to discuss an issue that many people have rather strong opinions about, and one which you can find millions of argumentative articles on. However, I don't want to sound like just another hooligan teenager that thinks marijuana should be legalized so that we can smoke all day and have a good 'ole time. Marijuana, as most people know, has an enormous amount of benefits in combatting diseases and sicknesses. As found on the Disabled World website, this plant can be used to combat the effects of AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and even some types of cancer, along with other serious diseases. Now, I'm aware that most sicknesses already have medicines and cures that can be used to help those infected, but one of the major benefits of marijuana in my opinion is that its a natural, growing, living plant. It's not a laboratory concocted pill filled with different types of chemicals that you're putting into your body.
Many people have recently fallen into the all-organic trend of eating only fruits and vegetables that have not been grown with pesticides or injected with preservatives to try to live healthier lives; but they still go to the doctor's office to receive medication when they're sick. Obviously there are many things that you need to go to the doctor for, and many things that can't be cured simply by smoking a plant. However, more serious illnesses, such as brain cancer can be combatted with marijuana. A study done in Madrid found that cannabinoids can actually "confer a direct antitumoral effect".
So, as we all know, marijuana has it's definite pros and cons. The argument I want to make is one that has been made many times before: medical marijuana should be legalized country-wide. Fortunately, our country is making progress with 21 legalized medical marijuana states. The problem I see with this is as follows: if a Texas resident was to become sick and desire to be cured in natural ways, such as with the use of marijuana, they would have to move to an entirely different state to have their requests met. To have to go through the stress of moving states on top of having a life-altering disease simply to receive the treatment you desire is just plain dumb!
Of course marijuana is going to have its downfalls, as does alcohol and many other substances. I think, if legalized nationwide, it just needs to have strict regulations, the same as alcohol: age restrictions, driving restrictions, etc. There's always going to be cases in which people abuse substances, it happens every day with things that are legal right now. But in this case, I think that the pros of giving people an all natural option to cure whatever they are dealing with would be a nice little addition to medical practices nowadays.
A cool website: Norml (there's an interesting part that shows the effects in states and countries in which marijuana has been made legal)
Many people have recently fallen into the all-organic trend of eating only fruits and vegetables that have not been grown with pesticides or injected with preservatives to try to live healthier lives; but they still go to the doctor's office to receive medication when they're sick. Obviously there are many things that you need to go to the doctor for, and many things that can't be cured simply by smoking a plant. However, more serious illnesses, such as brain cancer can be combatted with marijuana. A study done in Madrid found that cannabinoids can actually "confer a direct antitumoral effect".
So, as we all know, marijuana has it's definite pros and cons. The argument I want to make is one that has been made many times before: medical marijuana should be legalized country-wide. Fortunately, our country is making progress with 21 legalized medical marijuana states. The problem I see with this is as follows: if a Texas resident was to become sick and desire to be cured in natural ways, such as with the use of marijuana, they would have to move to an entirely different state to have their requests met. To have to go through the stress of moving states on top of having a life-altering disease simply to receive the treatment you desire is just plain dumb!
Of course marijuana is going to have its downfalls, as does alcohol and many other substances. I think, if legalized nationwide, it just needs to have strict regulations, the same as alcohol: age restrictions, driving restrictions, etc. There's always going to be cases in which people abuse substances, it happens every day with things that are legal right now. But in this case, I think that the pros of giving people an all natural option to cure whatever they are dealing with would be a nice little addition to medical practices nowadays.
A cool website: Norml (there's an interesting part that shows the effects in states and countries in which marijuana has been made legal)
Thursday, October 17, 2013
House Republicans to Blame?
Hunter, a writer for "Daily Kos" political blog who prefers not to mention his last name, wrote an article today about the government shut down that just occurred. Although many citizens have many things to say about what just took place, this particular article caught my eye because it seems to place all of the blame on the House Republicans, even mentioning it in the title of the article, "Prison, border guards required to work with out pay during House tantrum". Tantrum?! My opinion on this matter is that the House Republicans are not completely to blame for the government shut down. Our debt has been accumulated for years now, and the blame for this shut down can be placed on every single person involved in politics. I think that Obama, the House Republicans, and every government official bickering about Obamacare are being stubborn, and they need to come to a negotiation before this gets even more out of hand. I feel that there should have been a better alternative to a shut down, but I'm sure if there was we wouldn't have proceeded with the shut down, so I guess they did what they had to. Although this article may contain some truth, such as the citizens required to work with out pay, it lacks little, if any evidence to prove that this shut down should be blamed solely on the House. The argument isn't even well formulated, it just makes witty little puns about how the House Republicans should have made better decisions. Fortunately for the writer, it has some logic behind the argument because, from what I've seen, people either side with the House, Obama, or just think that they are all being ignorant (neutral). So I guess this particular blog was just directed towards House-bashers, in which case maybe they did a good job of getting them all worked up into blaming the House. However, one thing I do agree with Hunter about is that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect people to do their jobs with out being paid (prison guards, border patrol, etc.). I know I wouldn't come to work if I were that person, and if something doesn't change I think that the outcome of that matter could be very bad as well.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Blog Stage 3: Obamacare? NObamacare?
The Editorial Board of USAToday recently posted an article in the opinion section of their website entitled "Mend Obamacare, don't end it: Our view". This article is in support of Obamacare, stating that it will help many that do not currently have health insurance or those that cannot afford it. The article admits that the beginning stages of Obamacare may be "rocky", discussing the potential penalties for those who oppose or refuse to sign up for the new health care act, but goes on to state that the overall effects of the bill will be beneficial to many people; even those who currently pay for their health insurance will save money because those who do not have insurance will no longer "drive up health costs for everyone else". Although I haven't been too keen on the idea of Obamacare from what I've heard, this article is making me think twice. The pros that it offers greatly outweigh the cons based on the facts that the article is stating. The writing delivers a good overall message that may change your mind about a few things. However, it fails to tell the reader about the ill effects that Obamacare may produce, therefore making the article seem very one-sided. It's hard to find unbiased information these days, and I don't blame them for only using examples that support their opinion. If someone was looking to gain knowledge about both pros and cons of The Affordable Health Care Act, this article would not be the place to start. It does provide a well rounded argument though.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
House Passes Bill Cutting $40 Billion From Food Stamps
On Thursday, the House Republicans passed a bill that "slashed" 40 billion dollars from America's Food Stamp Program. This bill was strongly objected by the democrats, and only cleared by seven votes. The bill plans on cutting the money over the next ten years, and requiring that food stamp beneficiaries have a job in order to receive them (which I think is a wonderful idea). I think this article is worth reading because there are so many different opinions one could draw from it. The article, written on September 19, 2013 by Ron Nixon of The New York Times, can be found with this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html?ref=politics&_r=0. Of course food stamps are beneficial to many people, but what about those who just take advantage of it? The Republicans believe that the many receivers of food stamps have gotten completely out of control. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)