The Stem Cell Divide post #1

I have been reading The Stem Cell Divide by Michael Bellomo  for 45 pages and so far... eh. I feel like the book hasn't really started yet so, I don't know how to have an opinion on it yet. The first thing you read is a story of a girl who was in a horrific car accident and used stem cells to replace her pancreas. And although stem cells saved her life, she still doesn't know how she feels about them. And Bellomo says that this how much of the nation feels. They want to be OK with stem cells because they can save peoples lives quicker and easier than ever before but, you feel like you shouldn't be OK with the use of them because, as many of us know, stem cells come from unborn fetus'. This is where the problem lies. This is where the whole debate is. Everyone recognizes that stem calls are safe and effective, but, they come from babies that just didn't make it. Weather or not this is a result of an abortion is another issue entirely. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that all fetus' used for stem cell research and development come from miscarriages or ectopic pregnancy. Would it be OK then? I think so.

In response to the Sandy Hook shooting.

I work at a children's store (The Land of Nod, to be exact) and I worked all weekend. When I was working the cash register on Friday, a woman came in with her son. As he played around with all the over priced toys we offer, she stood back smiling. My manager was also at the counter with me and she leaned over and said "It's so nice that you have a place to play, here" and my boss said "Yea, the kids love it" And she was just silent for a moment than looked over at her son-still smiling- and said "After what happened today... it's just nice to have this moment." I guess that's when it became real to me. My 35 year old, aggressive looking, manager and a stranger were just staring at this kid enjoy life. He didn't know what had happened, all he knew what that he had a toy truck and he was happy. Sometimes that's all you need. As the woman left, my manager (also a father of two beautiful little ones) looked over at me and said "I don't want to even begin to imagine what those parents feel like. For the life of me, I have to stay away from that thought" He than started his walk to the back to start counting the reserve.
As for me, not being a parent but, way to empathetic to even know how to handle it, couldn't stay away from that thought when I got home at 10pm. I sat in my bed reading things on the Internet about how parents would have to bury their kids over Christmas and saying that this has to be the final straw in finally getting to change our gun control laws.
Then on Sunday, before I left for another day at work, I saw president Obama's speech. When he named all the children, and teachers, and addressed our country- that's when I finally lost it. I couldn't help but shed a tear (or a couple dozen tears) for those that had to deal with the pain that seemed so far away from me.
I know that when I have kids of my own, I'll understand more why my mom wanted me to stay home from work and just be with her. Or why on Friday my dad called me kiddo again (after 9 years) and told me he loved me as I walked out the door. But, right now, even the possibility of having to ever feel that, was terrifying enough.

I wish I knew what to say.

So many things have happened. So many things that could've or should've been avoided. I'm talking about the shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut. I don't even know how to handle that. It's the second worse school shooting in America (behind Virgina Tech and before Columbine).
It amazes me how one moment I'm sitting in sociology, passing notes and goofing off, and another moment I realize that as I was sitting in school all day, people were dying. It's crazy to me.
I just wish that I had something to say.

How much say should the government have in our lives?

I don't really have an answer. My head starts many unneeded conflicts with itself. On one hand I think that we are the land of the free, so how come the government has the right to tell us what we can and cannot do (in regards to abortion, religion, marriage)? But than I start to think of all the laws that I'm glad are in place. The laws that send people to jail when they harm another human beings or put others in danger. So is it possible to weave out all the bad and keep the good?
Honestly, no. Because everybody has an opinion. And thats not a bad thing. There's just a lot of them. Everybody has an opinion on what the good and the bad mean. And it is impossible to keep everyone happy. There has never been a president of the United States where every single person in the country went "Alright. I'm OK with this. I can live with this." That has never happened, and that will never happen.  Everybody has there own thing that they want to the president to focus on. And honestly, 4 years isn't that long. When Obama got elected the first time- I was in 8th grade. Now, I'm graduating High School. But, if I look at everything that happened in those 4 years, I realize that it's not as long as I thought. In fact, it went a lot faster than I was initally expecting.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that you can't please the whole population in 4 years. Or even 8. Because there are so many conflicting sides that if you tried, I'm pretty sure you'd be unfit to rule, and would go insane.
Obviously I'm great with words and I really know how to get points across. So, I'm gunna try this one more time: Everyone is different. But you can lump people into groups based on they want to be able to do, and what they want (or do not want) others to do, in accordance to the law. And which people are you supposed to go with? Which people do you support or think you should support? Which people are right? this is where things get foggy.

I actually have no idea what to do at this point.

So, this complicates things. I guess I'll just stick with my plan since birth- don't vote in elections you cant legally vote in anyway! OK! Deal!

But actually, I thought this survey would actually help me decide who I'm more like and who I think would make a better president. I am fully aware of both of their flaws and strengths since I watch a lot of Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert and they tend to make these things VERY obvious.
I guess I always knew I was a split person. My parents being republicans and my friends being a healthy mix of republicans and democrats, I have gotten advocated from both sides but i never actually though it split me, and oh-so accurately.

I guess I'll have to see what happens in the next four years and then see where I fall.

Speeches at school suck anyway... I don't need 'em.

For those of you that think that racism is a thing of the past- I dare you to google "Beta Theta Pi Auburn".
I want to say that I believed it too. But I always knew that there were still crazy people in the world that just didn't get it. They didn't get that we are equals. Everyone. All equal. I guess it never sunk in. But this is just going a tad overboard. Wearing black face and simulating a lynching (all while wearing KKK garb)? Really? You couldn't be more subtle?
This is against most peoples personal values, but it's also agaisnt the law. As I'm sure we've all noticed at some point or another, the rules they make us follow in school can and will contradict those we are given in the real world (like free speech). And at this particular college, they made a rule forbidng "any form of discrimination or harassment related to a student's race." And they made sure it would be damn hard to find a loophole adding that harassment and discrimination can include: "slurs, jokes or other graphic or physical conduct related to a student's race". Now, when they graduate from that college- there will be no such rule. It may be a folkway to break, but there is no formal sanction. But, at school your rights don't necassarily match up with those given by the government. I'm not saying I agree with this, but in a situation like this you have to be a little happy that this exsits. Now they won't get away with it.
Although restrictited speech at school can be a good thing (^), there are times when it's just too much. With the organizatin FIRE you can look up certain schools and track the rights they allow pertaining to free speech. I looked up Syracuse University (being a hopeful) and was slightly dissappointed when I saw they were given a red light. Which means that they have at least one rule that is "clearly and substantially restrict[ing] freedom of speech". On FIRE they also give examples of things the media are saying and cases that have passed through the school, I was excited when I saw "On-Campus free speech slowly improving" but brought back down again when I read that they were listed on the "Top 12 worst colleges for free speech" list. One of the cases at Syracuse was about Holloween cosumes. Now, this is something I've delt with since I entered school so, I think I'll be okay for another 4 years. But it just upsets me that such a quailty school would even try to restrict something as fun as holloween costumes, I mean what counts as offensive? At my school, my friend got in trouble for cross-dressing when she was Clark Kent- is that offensive? Not to me, not to her, not to anyone who walked by her in the hallway, Clark Kent maybe? Now, or course these rules infringe on the freedom of speech- but they're allowed to. Freedom of expression and freedom of any kind of speech aren't necasarily things you get to keep when you walk into school.
Now, imagine if you will, if the party mentioned above happened at Syracuse University. They would have none of it. It would be shut-down in a second. They wouldn't even be allowed to think about it. No sir- no how.
But, I can't say I wouldn't do the same.

9/11

9/11/2001 is a time that holds heartbreak, and greif for many. But it also reminds many more how much we love this country. Everybody became way more protective of the United States after 9/11. The airports, the schools, and especially, the citizens.
Although at times it can all seem a little TOO much (I, too, an guilty of saying "What is actually gonna happen anyway?") but, I think we can all take a little time to realize how much the government cares for us, and the reason that things can seem a little too strict at times is- tough love.
These annoying new rules that have been in place now for 11 years are only here to protect us, thats not to say that next time I'm at an airport I'll be completely understanding and coopertive, I do get impatient and annoyed, but we can all take a step back and understand this is only for us.

Burning the Flag

Burning the American flag is NOT protected under free speech, but should it be?

In my humble opinion, no. But it's not like anyone actually cares. I don't have a reason to burn the flag and I don't think I ever will, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. The reason I have against it is that if it were legal how many people do you think would do it? None. Or close to it.
Nothing irritates me more than when  the only reason people have to do something is because they're not allowed to. So maybe the reason it should be illegal is because everybody needs to grow up and get over it.
I do understand why it is illegal, because to the majority of our country veiws our flag as a symbol of freedom and it is very sacred to them and they're belifes, just like you can't burn the bible or other religous documents. The American flag has been through a lot, and has meant a lot to a lot of people and it would just be rude and dissrespectful to burn it.
But many people find ways to compain about this and to them all I have to say it- just stop.

I don't get why the one underneath won't publish normally! GAH!
But If you high light it you can see it... just so you know.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

These couple lines play over the loud speaker at school every morning and as a student I must stand up, put my hand over my heart, and say it. It's not that I don't believe it, it's not that I really even have a problem with it at all. It's 30 seconds that would otherwise be spent listening to music and complaining that I'm tired. 

I just want someone to explain to me why I must stand up, put my hand over my heart, and say it. I've heard that it's to show our patriotism and love for this country but, you know what? If I really wanted to show it that so bad, I wouldn't need someone telling me I have to. Don't you think that young people should be able to make these decisions for themselves? And isn't it possible that if I'm lazy and just don't feel like it, I still love my country and am proud of it? Why does whether or not I say a half-hearted pledge too early in the morning determine if I care?

Even when we're told that we're not forced and it's really our decision, it's a lie. Because if you don't say it somebody's gunna be mad at you. Like in the case of a 13-year-old Jehovah's Witness who was forced to stand outside in the rain for 15 minutes after not reciting the pledge. Like, come on, that's a little ridiculous, it's not exactly corporal punishment, but it's just humiliating and unfair.    

So I dare someone, anyone, to give me a solid reason to say it with heart and mean it, because I already have many reasons to not. 

Jeff, Who Lives at Home

While being bored and sick the last couple days of the shortest summer of my life, I went to my local redbox and rented a beautiful movie called: Jeff, Who Lives at Home and it was nothing like what I expected. I mean geez it's a sundance movie with Jason Segel and Ed Helms, these funny people!
I'm not saying this isn't a funny movie. The first half- mostly comedy. The second half- meant to reach down your throat take your heart srings and yank them out.
It's kind of like a coming of age story for a thirty year old man [Jeff] and the changes that are happening with his relationship to his married, working brother. In the begginng you're thinking that Jeff is just a guy who is immature, has yet to fully develop, and doesn't quite understand. But you soon come to the conclusion: is that such a bad thing?
Maybe if he doesn't look at the world like your typical 30 year old, he may enjoy it more. he may see things that you couldn't. He may not even notice the stresses or care much. Granted, he's 30 with no job and living with his mother- not much to have worries about. [except fixing that damned window]
While the movie progresses and you get deeper and deeper into the ball of conflict that is his relationship to his brother. Who has a full-time job, a wife, and a brand new car. And just when you think the movie is over and everyone is happy again... you start to cry. Well, at least I did.
And it's not a sad cry, its the most touching, heart-warming thing I have ever seen.
I don't want to spoil it at all, so I'll let you go watch it and find out for your self.

Syria

• unrest started with the Tunisian revolution reached Syria in mid-March 2011
• with children doing anti-government grafitti the government responded withheavy handed punishment
• the country did not respond well and an uproar began.
• in a dictatorship
• was going to do slight reform but decided to be harsher was better.*
• soilders started to go against the government with harsh attacks

The Syrian government upset the people of their contry as far as they could handle. They took harsh action against a harmless prank and the people took action back. They protested and got worse and worse. Then Al-Queada came out and made things worse. In terms of peoples reaction and outsiders opinions on them (made worse very negative stereotypes). I'm wondering why the government just wants to get harsher and harsher when obviously the people arnt responding well to that kind of treatment? TO THE PAST- dictatorships dont work. They never have and they never will. One person will never have enough insight to control/run an entire country by themselves.







*?

The War in Afghanistan

Well, it seems as though the war is coming closer and closer to an end. They're trying to get everybody home to their families as soon as possible and their planning to end combat in a little less than a year- a year before everyone should be home.

Its understandble that people are angry about this war- I know that I hear my parents talk about how dumb it is all the time. I don't think people have heard a clear plan in a really long time and they need to know how they plan to do all these things that have promised.

possible sources...

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1185862?&Search=yes&searchText=americans&searchText=native&searchText=trail&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dnative%2Bamericans%2Band%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=1248&returnArticleService=showFullText



http://www.jstor.org/stable/40582017?&Search=yes&searchText=american&searchText=trail&searchText=indian&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Damerican%2Bindian%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Dnative%2Bamericans%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=2290&returnArticleService=showFullText



http://www.jstor.org/stable/40189858?&Search=yes&searchText=native&searchText=american&searchText=trail&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dnative%2Bamerican%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Damerican%2Bindian%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=6&ttl=2107&returnArticleService=showFullText


http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1224798?terms=trail+of+tears

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/410591?terms=trail+of+tears

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/254463?terms=indian+removal+act

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40582012?&Search=yes&searchText=Secret&searchText=State&searchText=Tears&searchText=Cherokee&searchText=Carolina&searchText=North&searchText=Trail&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DState%2BSecret%253A%2BNorth%2BCarolina%2Band%2Bthe%2BCherokee%2BTrail%2Bof%2BTears%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=129&returnArticleService=showFullText

QUESTION

I am learning about Native Americans and the Trail of Tears because I want to find out why Andrew Jackson found it necessary to move the Natives into a remote location in such traitorous conditions in order to find out weather it was really a necessary action to take and what it ended up effecting both negatively and positively.

Trail of Tears- links

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1185862?&Search=yes&searchText=americans&searchText=native&searchText=trail&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dnative%2Bamericans%2Band%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=1248&returnArticleService=showFullText



http://www.jstor.org/stable/40582017?&Search=yes&searchText=american&searchText=trail&searchText=indian&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Damerican%2Bindian%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Dnative%2Bamericans%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=3&ttl=2290&returnArticleService=showFullText



http://www.jstor.org/stable/40189858?&Search=yes&searchText=native&searchText=american&searchText=trail&searchText=tears&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dnative%2Bamerican%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3Damerican%2Bindian%2BAND%2Btrail%2Bof%2Btears%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=6&ttl=2107&returnArticleService=showFullText

Native American: Removal and Trail of Tears overview

Indian Removal Act (around 1830) and the stuff that follows:

Indian Removal Act- http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1187738?sid=254448&webSiteCode=SLN_AMHIST&returnToPage=%2fTopics%2fDisplay%2f1187738%3fsid%3d254448&cid=23&oid=263244&useConcept=False&token=F0E781CCF1DEDAE31A3807244FA765E7&casError=False

Enacted on May 28, 1830 after one of the most contentious and bitter debates in Congress with the exception of the arguments over slavery, the Indian Removal Act proceeded to shift most of the nations of Indian tribes in the eastern United States to what was deemed "Indian country" in present-day Oklahoma. In the most notorious of the Indian removal efforts, President Andrew Jackson ordered the Cherokee nation off its land in Georgia in 1833. Although the tribe fought against the order in the U.S. court system, it was eventually forced to comply. As the Cherokee made their arduous journey to Oklahoma, starvation, illness, cold, and despair resulted in thousands of deaths, so that the journey is now remembered as the Trail of Tears.

Removing Indians west of the Mississippi River.

Forced Migration

Trail of Tears- http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1224798?terms=trail+of+tears

Responses and Answers to Race Questions

QUESTIONS: 1. What kind of impact might they have on the communities in which they took place? 
2. What impact might they have on whites?
3. On African Americans?

Newt Gingrich and the Art of Racial Politics:

1. I think that in this case, the Community means the entire US, and people of color. This had a very big impact on the community in which it took place because he was racially profiling the Black community, by saying that they don't have a good work ethic and need to want and beg for better jobs. This upset a lot of people and Gingrich explained himself saying that he was talking about ALL Americans not just Blacks.

2. This particular argument may not have any effect on white people if other people don't generalize a race just as Gingrich had done. If nobody assumes that this is anybodies way of thinking except for Newt Gingrich then nobody will have to worry.

3. The impact on African Americans and Blacks is very apparent because it is directly calling out an entire race. Gingrich said that "black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps" and even though in his next statement that "poor kids are lacking a strong work ethic" doesn't mention a certain race he can't escape the fact that he did say "black Americans" and therefore generalizing that the whole race is on food stamps or not demanding a good enough job. This offended a lot of people although he did try and explain himself.

Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Couples:

1. The community in which this church is, is effected because if there are any other interracial couples, they now know that they can't get married at that specific church. Even if no other people in interracial couples have a desire to get married there, it can also stir up feelings of people not involved because they may feel a prejudice put on to them or their race- or they could just be really upset that their town and/or their place of worship still holds on to some racist thoughts.

2. The effect on white people in this situation is a more apparent one because it directly involves a white girl who can't marry a black man. This restricts the race from doing what they please, freely. 

3. Same with African Americans but they could bring up the fact of racism and old prejudices that prevented this exact thing in the past.