Secondary Education

The question of whether or not I would attend college after high school always had one discrete answer. Yes. Where I grew up (an upper middle class suburb in Wisconsin), college is expected by the majority of high school students upon graduation. In my opinion, this has proven to be both good and bad for me. I can't complain for having parents that have strongly encouraged as well as supported me to attend a great university with so many opportunities for success. However, it's such a swift transition during the peak time of one's life where self discovery is at its highest. With that said, my career plans have altered numerous times after being exposed to different classes as well as just finding out what I really want and am interested in since living in Minneapolis.

This realization has caused me to ask myself why there is such a stigma about attending college right away after high school and if it's really necessary. I always felt like if someone didn't go to school right away or took a year off, they were "lost" or looked down upon in some way. To be honest, now I can say that those individuals who take some time off between the move from high school to secondary education are the wise ones in many ways. They have time to learn about themselves, get experience and exposure to the areas that interest them without making too much of a commitment, and potentially save time and money.

Secondary education is not always the answer for everyone and should not be the immediate and only option after graduating high school. It's best to ingest the world a little bit, get your feet wet without having to dive in, and explore the areas which one is curious about (without the pressure of being pushed into the open waters and having no idea of of where to go.) Secondary education is not disappearing anytime soon and it's more prevalent now than ever for older students to enroll without complication. As a society, we need to accept people's space and give them time to figure out one of the biggest decisions of their lives. Guidance is fine but discrimination is not.

Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

This is a huge issue that we have been dealing with for a while and probably will be dealing with for a very, very long time. The reason people think it is wrong, is because in the Bible it says marriage is strictly between man and woman, and they are the only ones who can have babies and families. Yes it is true that two gay men literally can't birth children, and two gay women can't create a child with just each other, but there are such things as finding a surrogate, artificial insemination, and adopting children. People think that by being raised by two parents of the same sex, the child will not be brought up, and will miss out things that kids experience with a father and a mother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yMLZO-sObzQ

You can see here that Zach was raised with two mothers, and I think he turned out to be a pretty good kid. He says his family isn't all the different from other families. They go to church, they go on vacations, and they fight like regular families do. Zach scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT. He doesn't really seem to be corrupted from being raised by two women. Just because a child is raised by two men or two women, it doesn't mean they will be raised differently. They will still be taught all of the things children being raised by a man a woman would be taught. The only difference is that the child will probably be taught that homosexuality isn't something that should be rejected in society like it is being now.

I understand that in the Bible it says that homosexuality isn't right, but it also says in the Bible that God created everyone. So if He created everyone, doesn't that mean that he created homosexuals as well? People think that gay people and lesbians choose to be gay, but do we choose to be straight? It just happens. We are born this way aren't we? How is one supposed to know if homosexuals choose to be gay? Hundreds of years ago, engaging in homosexual acts wasn't frowned upon. Older men had sex with younger men and that was an action of power. When did our views of this culture change and why did they change?

I understand both views, but I side with only one. I wish people would be more open-minded about certain issues.

In Vitro Fertilization

In the biology class I am taking this semester we have been talking about different ways that couples deal with infertility. In my lab discussion there was a heated argument over whether IFV is ethical. In Vitro Fertilization is IVF, a laboratory procedure in which sperm are placed with an unfertilized egg in a Petri dish to achieve fertilization. The embryo is then transferred into the uterus to begin a pregnancy or cyropreserved (frozen) for future use. In Vitro Fertilization literally means "Fertilization in Glass". A child born by in vitro fertilization is inaccurately known a "test tube baby” which has become a common nickname for the procedure. There are many ethical implications to this procedure that have caused for quite the conflict within society. Pros of the issue including it helps infertile couples have the chance to conceive a child, it can help to prevent birth defects, it has had good success rates with some even being too effective, with women giving birth to twins, triplets, or even more babies and it is a fairly safe procedure overall. There are cons to IFV as well which include the possibility of malformed babies, possible social concerns from others, couples being very disappointed and depressed after they have tried many methods but once again fail, it is a rather invasive procedure, and some pain is associated with the process of removing the woman’s eggs and there is a surgical procedure involved.
The specific ethical issue that caught spite was if IFV creates a real human being. There are definitely two sides to the ethical issue of whether an in vitro fertilized baby is a real human being and if they should be treated as normal human beings. I personally believe IFV will become more prevalent as time goes on and is definitely an option some infertile couple should consider but I will argue against myself here and then show my side as well. On one hand IFV babies create non-traditional families where the baby isn’t created naturally but in a petri-dish. It could be said that it destroys social structure by letting babies be produced un-naturally. It would be the end of the nuclear family, with marriage replaced by laboratory breeding. It would be the creation of all sorts of non-traditional families from the conservative view. From the religious point of view of the Catholics, they state that it is inherently wrong because it is unnatural. They believe life starts when the egg and sperm meet and when it is done unnaturally it isn’t a real human being. On the other hand though, what is a normal family these days? An in vitro fertilized baby is still going to eat, breathe and sleep like a regular baby that was conceived. It is still going to have a soul and grow up like a normal baby who was conceived without help by a doctor. IFV babies that have already been born haven’t been shunned as much as people thought they would by society in fact there weren’t many problems reported at all. It is a new technology and once people get use to the idea of it and become more accustomed to it, it will more accepted by society as seen so far. Anything new is going to be treated as hesitant by part of society, but as time goes on society will realize it isn’t that big of a deal and it will become more of a mainstream procedure and become a part of daily life.

PETA, Please Enjoy This Advertisement.

This is an advertisement poster showing an obese boy in Merthyr Tydfil claiming feeding burgers to children is a form of abuse. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is the group behind this ad campaign. The animal rights group posted the picture to raise awareness of Merthyr Tydfil’s obesity problem. Local authorities have spoken saying the labeling of the poster is both offensive and inaccurate.

A spokeswoman for Merthyr County Borough Council said: “We offer many healthy living projects and initiatives that aim to address the issue of child obesity, and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, the message conveyed in this advert is portrayed as stereotypically offensive and is blatantly inaccurate. PETA admits to placing the ad where it did to target the overweight children in the area. The ad also displays a “Fight The Fat: Go Veg” slogan at the bottom.

PETA is known for having controversial ads, but this one doesn’t clearly say that eating meat means killing animals. Some of their other ads are pictures of famous celebrities, usually naked women posing with the words of ‘I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur. More recent ads are of male celebrities with tattoos next to the words “Ink Not Mink”. So this controversial type ad is not unusual for PETA to put up.

When asked about the validity of the statement in this ad, Tracy Reiman, CP of PETA and mother said the following: "The potential for damage caused by a meat-heavy diet is like a ticking time bomb in kids. Vegetarian and vegan kids are, on average, slimmer and enjoy all-around better health than their meat-eating peers. 'Eat your veggies' has become more than just off-the-cuff parental advice— it can mean the difference between a healthy, happy kid and one who's overweight and sick." There is no scientific backing to this statement, or any sources whatsoever. Meat can make individuals fat and unhealthy but so can multiple other things.

As far as child abuse goes, wordnetweb.princton.edu defines child abuse as the physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of kids. So it isn’t clearly marked that feeding kids meat is child abuse-the argument can go both ways. If one were to feed a child nothing but meat products with a lot of fat, some could consider that child abuse. If one were to feed a child a chicken breast once a week, that is less likely to be child abuse.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns. On PETA’s website, is reads PETA “focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry.” Not once in there does it say the well being of humans.

According to The Legal Dictionary, Animal Cruelty is the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.

A less controversial organization of animal rights activist is the ASPCA, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. They focus more on helping abused animals than promoting an animal product free lifestyle. In the “about us” section on their website the ASPCA was founded in 1866, and the ASPCA was the first humane organization in the Western Hemisphere. Their mission, as stated by founder Henry Bergh, is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.” The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane laws and share resources with shelters nationwide. The ads put out by ASPCA don’t encourage living an animal free lifestyle, they just want to provide care for all the animals. The only advertisement that ASPCA puts on is the television commercial with sad looking animals with a sad song, asking for help.

A new animal rights topic in culture today is the horse slaughter ban lifted by congress. A PETA spokesperson said that while the group continues to oppose the slaughter of horses, the congressional ban had some unintended consequences, particularly the shipment and housing of horses at foreign facilities where U.S. humane slaughtering protections do not apply. To reduce suffering, there should be a ban on the export of live horses, even if that means opening slaughterhouses in the U.S. again. There hasn’t been any funding implemented for the ban so it is unclear what will happen

In the Journal of Law and Health, there is the following argument : Congress Must Adopt Legislation That Creates Humane Living Standards for Animals Raised for Food in Order to Alleviate the Burden of Food-Related Illness on the Healthcare System. This article covers four main topics. 1. Food-Borne Illness, Antibiotic Resistant Infections, and Environmental Pollutants Increase Health Care Costs. 2.Inexpensive Meat Promotes Excessive Consumption of Animal Products, Which Increases Chronic Disease and Associated Health Care Costs 3. Small Increases in the Price of Meat May Improve Health By Discouraging Excessive Consumption of Animal Products 4.Small Increases in the Price Of Meat Will Allow Producers to Employ Humane Procedures That Will Create Healthier, More Nutritious Meat That Reduces the Risk of Chronic Diseases. I think that not only does this article address the animal abuse issue, but it also covers the human-health issue as well. It isn’t the best option, but it is plausible.

High School Drinking and Driving

I'm choosing to argue with the subject position of myself as a high schooler...so here it goes:

In my high school, drinking and pot smoking were extremely prominent. Even after hours and hours of classes and guest speakers explaining the consequences of teen delinquency, nobody ever stopped to think twice (do they ever?). Residing in a small, wealthy suburb, drinking and/or smoking was the only thing for most kids to do to pass the time. The problem was that this suburb also gave everyone a strong sense of security and even invincibility to those within it. No one really had any concern for anything happening outside that 3x3 mile radius because everything seemed rather picture-perfect there.

On a given evening in my friend group, it was a rarity to have a designated driver. Everyone wanted to drink; everyone wanted to fit in; everyone wanted to do what their older brothers and sisters did in high school before them. I can't even tell you how many times I was in a car operated by an intoxicated underage. It's scary to think about now. But the fact is, we never got caught and so we never learned first hand what these "consequences" were that our health teachers so often preached.

Others were not so lucky. Since graduating and moving to Minneapolis, I've learned of several high school drinking and driving deaths through Facebook and other news sites. These accidents are more than tragic. Those kids will never get out of that 3x3 mile radius because of this teen ignorance I've been describing, the ignorance that thankfully did not do me in. Were it not for my current subject position--a motivated, self-sufficient college student with some sort of valid goal set--I can finally accept that ignorance. I've recognized it is almost impossible to accept said ignorance when you're in high school and the future is nothing but a distant blur. Unfortunately, the bridge between fitting in and making it out into the world might as well stretch halfway across the world. Three years ago, I was on one end of the bridge and now I'm the other end and I can't ever imagine even meeting halfway. I am fortunate to be alive on the other side; I could have very well been killed by my stupidity.

Gay Christians

Once upon a time, a good friend of mine and I found ourselves in a heated argument. It concerned the nature of homosexuality and its affiliation or lack thereof with Christian doctrine and practice. This man had gone to the Bacilica Block Party, and while he was present, witnessed a homosexual say that all gays will be able to go to Heaven. To this observation, my friend felt disgusted by the very notion of a Gay Christian. He believes that through the rhetoric of the church and scripture, homosexuality is a perverted choice that is purely unnatural and evil because it fails to accomplish the goal of human connection which is procreation. Since it is a choice to involve themselves in homosexual activity, he prays for their souls as he believes they have an uphill climb if they are to ever reach Heaven. Finally, his strongest belief is that if the church ever decides that gays are acceptable, they are falling into the temptation of pleasing the masses and not following the teachings in Scripture and the Catechism. All these beliefs that my friend holds are beyond reason. To me, it looks like a dependency of ideology that this man wishes to leech onto when he clings so wholeheartedly to scripture and the catechism.

I, on the other hand, take a more scientific approach. I stick to science, and feel comfortable saying that there is just something genetically different between that of a hetero and homosexual. I can even look to nature itself and find animals having gay sex with each other. Can nature itself then be unnatural? I think not! Thus, I don't think that homosexuals are evil in their actions and should be allowed to practice Christianity.

The bridge is clear in that one holds science while the other holds religious faith as an authority through which they make their arguments. Their inherent fundamentals and what they've been brought up with are so cemented that it becomes nearly impossible for either side to budge. The issue itself is the rights that Homosexuals have in choosing to be Christians. I was born into a catholic family as well as my friend, and this is what i find so fascinating!!! Though we both practice the same religion, there are substantially different degrees to which we believe within the church. I understand where he's coming from. I just can't talk to him without getting angry! LOL

Posting Assignment #8 (due Sunday 12/4, 11:59 P.M.; comment by 11:59 Monday, 12/5) Building a theory-bridge of charity—to reach people who believe 'nonsense'

 [long post; read it carefully]

When we did our 'belief / science' spectrum in class we could all look out over our group and see—graphically—how we differed in the ways we see science, facts, rationality, spirituality, commitment to views of the world and the universe, emotion, proof—everything.  It was a moment of affirmation for many of us, because we were able to treat our many differences with complete respect.

It's not always that way.  In 'Beyond…reason,' Robin and Carl try to explain how we might understand the visceral, powerful, passionate and often ugly ways we 'construct' those whose views radically contradict ours.  They show how words (rhetoric) work to construct worlds that may never be brought into alignment.  And why it matters so much.  And why we all probably do it.

So maybe, over in the other corner from where we sat on Tuesday, are people who really don't live in the same worlds we do—though we pass on the street and sit beside each other in Al's all the time.  Maybe.

In this late blog post, we can take this further by imagining a very specific 'subject position' different from our own, identifying a very specific claim about the world on which we would probably differ, and offering that person a way to see how the differences are constructed.  And why it matters so much. 

NOT a rant.  NOT Hannity or Jon Stewart.  No sneering, eye-rolling, snarky, funny put-downs.  No preaching.  No testifying. No self-serving superiority.  No unsupported claims. No condescension—as much fun as any of that can be.

Reasoned, careful, theoretically-anchored, self-aware and charitable. 

We may never change a mind.  But we may be able to get clear how we differ.  Step one across the bridge.

1.  Identify a subject position.  The model here is 'Beyond…reason,'  but for you and your world.  Think about how Robin lays out his hard-won investment in science, ornithology, geology, mountaineering, careful driving, big words, art, representation—and how his it contrasts with the world of guys who like the grand and grandiloquent, and who read the Whitney's catalog and build trucks as art.  Detailed.  Specific.  Maybe it's your best friend or your aunt.  Maybe it's your former Pastor or Hebrew School teacher.  Maybe it's your biology teacher.

2.  Identify an issue with a specific claim in it. The MCCL billboard above has many.  One is actual science: 'embryos are just tiny babies.'  One involves gender roles and pairings; a dude with his cap on backwards, and a babe with a cute hat with a butterfly.  Science.  Sex and sexuality, of course, if you can—but really anything that falls under our big umbrella of 'Science and Culture.'   Use the claims in Andrea Tone's history of 'the pill' if you like; things like Loretta Lynn singing sexual freedom and Bad Men.  Medicalization of sexuality.  Side effects.  Birth control as a 'woman's issue' (variously). The total alteration of sex, love, marriage, families that comes about when various 'reproductive technologies' become available.  'Rights' (privacy, life).  'Hook-ups' or 'friends with benefits' (discursive technologies).  Abstinence rings, clubs or balls (discursive technologies).  Arranged marriages (discursive technologies). Celibate priesthoods  (discursive technologies).  E-Harmony  (discursive / cyber technology).  Though we're not there yet, Jill Lepore's history of Planned Parenthood politics, the Pope, and the MCCL website (next week) are full of material.  So is your life.  Get it small and specific; good issue = good blogpost.

3.  Build a bridge. Writing in any form / format that works for you, explain how and why this issue is a total stumbling block, and what needs to be done to understand the inherent conflicts.  You're explaining and showing.  You're using our work (all of it) to make the case.  Your goal is understanding—going both ways.