What's the Issue With Birth Control?

So, I read an article on the New York Times website that bothered me...

It addressed the issue that there is more research being done on things such as baldness then there is being done on serious issues as birth control.  I believe in birth control, but at the same time, I have a firm belief that within marriage it isn't always necessary.  I believe that children have a right to come into this world, and coming up with more effective ways to prevent that is only going to convince those who are married to not have children due to "expenses".

The full article discussed ways that other countires were going about it, and though it is rather interesting, I would advise reading the entire article before saying that it's a great idea.  The link is below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Man's Best Friends Being Recognized

So...  Here's something extremely cool, pardon the pun.  In the expedition to the South Pole in 1911-1912, they used ponies and dogs to help them along the way, and now they are finally being officially recognized.

Something that is rather neat is the fact that they've found out the actual names of some of these animals, and air controllers use their' names as way point names in recent years.  Of course some of the names have been shortened to fit the five letter code that radio controllers use, but nonetheless, it is rather amazing.

Here's a link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/science/28polar.html?ref=science

Computers of the Modern Age

So...

They say that computers of the modern age, specifically laptops, are supposed to be so tricky to understand and fix, that you need people who are educated in nothing but computers in order to fix things for you.

Well...according me, not necessarily.  You see, I've had problems with the clicker on my laptop mouse for about two, maybe two and a half years now, and today, when my center click failed and I had no way to work on my computer, I decided to do something about it.

I took it apart and examined it.  Well, how about that?  The inner workings were merely gummed up a bit...looked like some crumbs had gotten in there.  Proabably from my freshman year of college when I was at WVU and had an addiction to jalapeno flavored Pringles.  So, I pulled out some cleaner and a paper clip (for those pesky small places), and within fifteen minutes...VOILA!  And then, I put it back together again, perfectly.

So there, modern age of computers.  How do you like that?  That's right. I, Elise, have fixed part of my computer.  So maybe it was just a mouse, but after two years of listening to my step-dad tell me that I needed to take it to be fixed, I did it myself!

(And I fixed my center-click, too!)

Sex Ads on Craigslist?

So, here's shocker for you.  As I was looking through the New York Times website, I came across this article, titled "Craigslist Has Said It Has Shut Its Section for Sex-Ads".

Now, how would you react to a title like that?

Let's say that I had the same reaction that you did, and leave it at that.

I had no idea that Craigslist even had a section like that on its website.  I was on there over the summer at one point, looking for a car, and I never even noticed.  You would think that something like that might stick out as it would be an unusual thing to be selling.  Yes, well, apparently Craigslist was expecting to make $44 million in revenue just from that this year, until they suddenly banned it.

Honestly, I don't know why they even let it exist in the first place.  It is wrong and...there are no words as to how wrong it is.  Read it for yourself on the website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16craigslist.html?ref=technology

No words...

Violence in Sports...and in Players

WOW! I just finished reading the book "Out of Bounds" by Jeff Bendict for the same class that I'm doing this blog for, and it was amazing.

I've never followed sports, but I have followed some crime, and I was still floored at the statistics of athletes as perpetrators of violence.  There were two articles by Jeff Benedict that appeared in Sports Illustrated, at least on their online postings.  Both of the articles speak about violence in sports, and an alarming statisic made itself known in one of them.

Did you know this crazy fact?

"So far this year through August, 125 college and professional football and basketball players have been arrested on serious charges.  By that I mean felonies or misdemeanors involving violence, weapons or substance abuse. That's pretty astounding. At this rate, the number will be up around 200 by year's end."


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jeff_benedict/09/08/athletes.crime/index.html#ixzz0yyoOQB43

This was taken directly from the article, and it honestly scared me a little.  I am so very glad that I didn't stay at my previous university, because the chances of something violent with athletes happening there is extremely high.  The university I'm at now has high standards and I'm very grateful for that feeling of protection, unlike other universities.

However, I was unsurprised that it was common among athletes, especially pros.  It's a natural inclination of anyone who gets used to having such a nomadic life and having things handed to them on silver platters, figuratively and literally.  This merely enforces the idea that they can have anything that they want, especially with the money that they make.  In our modern society, money is everything.  It may be an awful thing to say, but the truth is, money can make lots of things go away, and these athletes believe in it.

Thankfully, though, there are still athletes who do understand consequences and responsibility.  These few are even more highly regarded, as they know not to use their positions of money and power in abusive ways.  We need athletes to understand a few things about responsibility, and not just get used to being handed things all of the time.

Well, I digress.  Tell me, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Money, Home, and Hearth

So...I was reading an article called, "The Gospel of Wealth" and the humor in the very beginning of it hit home to me, peronally, right off the bat. (see link below)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The writer, David Brooks, says: 

"Maybe the first decade of the 21st century will come to be known as the great age of headroom. During those years, new houses had great rooms with 20-foot ceilings and entire new art forms had to be invented to fill the acres of empty overhead wall space.

People bought bulbous vehicles like Hummers and Suburbans. The rule was, The Smaller the Woman, the Bigger the Car — so you would see a 90-pound lady in tennis whites driving a 4-ton truck with enough headroom to allow her to drive with her doubles partner perched atop her shoulders.  When future archeologists dig up the remains of that epoch, they will likely conclude that sometime around 1996, the U.S. was afflicted by a plague of claustrophobia and drove itself bankrupt in search of relief."

As soon as I read this, I immediately thought of my mom.  We have two cars at out house.  Both of them are Toyotas.  One of them is a Tundra truck, the other is a Rav4.  My mom is petite.  Her favorite car is... Yep.  You guessed it.  The Tundra.

However, back to the article.  It continues on to speak of how, in recent years, we have shrunk back slightly from that idea and are moving towards more practical ways of living.  Although, I would have to disagree with what it says.

My brother, an architect, has worked on buildings for the modern age.  Today's age.  And things don't seem to be shrinking much...but they aren't expanding, either.  It's almost as though we have found a size that suits us, and we feel that we need the space as though it were a subconscious way of saying, 'This is my house, and, yes, I bought it with my own money.'  We use our houses as well as our churches to say, 'Look at me, look at my religion.  We have money, we have power...', but on the other hand we're still trying to say that we're humble.  Does something seem wrong with this picture?  It should.

----------------------------------------

At my house, we have a book called The Not So Big House, by Sarah Susanka, and it explains how to use a smaller house to its' wonderful advantage.  You use it to the old adage..."A place for everything, and everything in its' place.", while at the same time, making feel as though it has space.

Recently, I lived in a house with a ridiculous amount of square footage...at least, for me and my parents.  The basement alone added 1,200 sqare feet. However, whenever we had the rest of the family there, it felt as though it was almost filled.  It was a modern house, which, if you pay attention, is made for hosting parties, for entertaining.  A large foyer and kitchen with an open layout to a living room is almost something that we expect to see, along with sideboard lighting, open floors, and large countertops.  All of this says one thing, 'I have money.'

However, my mom hated having all of the extra space because it was never used (though she still had to clean it, how it got dirty, I'll never know).  We recently moved to a house that is practically identical to our previous house in every way...except it's much smaller, and way more usable.  When a house is large, people tend to feel the need to fill it with things, unnecessary things, and waste money by doing so. When you take it down a few notches, you discover you don't need things...you only need what you need, and maybe a couple of things to make it your own.

This is the perfect example of how our society seems to change their values simply by their living space.  When I lived at the other house, it was very easy not to see each other the whole day except for at dinner and in the evening when we watched television.  Now, however, even when my mom and I are both on the computer, we can carry a conversation easily...even when one of us goes upstairs, we don't have to raise our voice very much to be heard, nor do we have to walk across the house. 

We have become stronger in our faith as well within the home.  We are more aware of each other, and notice the absence of someone in the home more easily; whereas, at the previous house someone could have left for a couple of hours and come back, and you wouldn't necessarily notice. (sorry, mommy, but it's true)  Brooks makes a good observation about our society, but I wouldn't take everything he says at face value.  Life in reference to space is changing, but it's not necessarily shrinking.  However, I doubt we'll fall back into old habits.  We've lived through it and we've learned...

...I hope.

NASA in Trouble?

I was on the New York Times website, when I came across a headline article in the Science section. It was talking about a rocket that NASA had developed many years ago, and had been used on the Challenger, but was now fixed up and modified for a new program.


I was curious about this because I know that Obama has been cutting back funding on NASA programs, and this one seemed relatively new. So, in curiosity, I e-mailed my step-dad, who works at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what I e-mailed my step-dad:

"John--

What do you know about the Constellation project in relation to the new rocket that NASA has developed? I read an article recently in the New York Times about a new rocket motor that they've developed, even though in actuality it's an older model that they've improved on. Or, as the article said, "antiquated" version. Apparently the same style was used on the Challenger, and even though there was the huge accident, they've fixed what was wrong, that it was just a segment joint problem.

Do you know about why Obama is cutting funding? I figured, since you work at HQ, you might have some insight as to what is really going on.

--Elise"

Here's what my step-dad e-mailed to me:

"That’s a lot of questions with a lot of twists and turns in the answers. I’ll try to keep it simple:

1. NASA began a program called Constellation around 2006 under the Bush administration. It’s goals were to build a new rocket and new crewed vehicle, return humans to the moon, and eventually send humans to Mars.

2. As a part of the Constellation (usually abbreviated Cx) program, there were two “new” rockets planned. A smaller rocket to left humans, and a larger for cargo/components for the moon/Mars missions. The latter wasn’t planned to be started for a couple of more years. The smaller rocket, based on the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) has been designed, and an early prototype has already been flown.

3. Yes, the SRBs were used on Challenger (as they have been on every Shuttle flight since it’s inception in 1981). Challenger exploded in 1986 and we haven’t had a problem with the SRBs since, so I’m surprised the article would make any kind of deal about them. TheSRBs are segmented (think of cans stacked on top of each other) and the solid rocket fuel propulsion is more like a controlled explosion, than anything else. Once the solid rocket fuel is ignited, it goes and can’t be stopped. The SRBs provide almost all the lift from launch through the first couple of minutes, and then are discarded (land in ocean and are picked up and refurbished for reuse).

4. The Cx smaller rocket uses 5 SRB segments. Space Shuttle uses four, but that’s the only difference physically.

5. The Cx program has been underfunded by Congress since its inception, which hasn’t helped the chronically over-budget and behind- schedule program. An independent committee reported to Congress, the President, and NASA last year that, without a HUGE infusion of money (which won’t happen, especially in this economy, but even in the best of times the HUGE was tooooooo HUGE), the program was going to miss its milestones by at least a decade (!!).

6. In light of the above, Obama set new goals for NASA.

a. Instead of NASA developing a small rocket, let private industry be responsible for ferrying people and cargo to low Earth orbit. NASA doesn’t need to do it anymore, and private industry is showing they can quite well.

b. Start the development of the larger of the two rockets immediately. Other than for space exploration, rockets of the size being discussed have little use, and are therefore not economically viable for private industry.

c. Stop the rest of Constellation and instead develop the key technologies that will answer the vexing technology problems that prevent human space exploration today (e.g., how to stop astronauts from losing too much bone mass when on the two year Mars odyssey; or how to prevent those same astronauts from dying from space radiation that they will be exposed to once they leave low Earth orbit).

d. When we have the answers to the technology problems, then start developing a generic human exploration capability rather than develop the point solutions planned today (i.e., today as in the past, NASA will develop a system to go to point A. When we decide we want to go to point B, we start all over again and develop a solution peculiar to getting to Point B. etc.).

e. Ensure that all of the above are funded adequately to succeed.

How’s that?

John"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this incredibly interesting as it shed so much more light on what's really going on with the space-program and how things are really going. I find it sad that our space-program is constantly over-budget and under-funded. Having grown up with my step-dad working for NASA, I've always felt close to the space program and have always thought that it should be in our top priority.

Think about it this way: We're a constantly expanding society...what will happen when we don't have any more room here? Where will we go? If we continue to fund NASA, then we could actually see the eventual colonizing of moons, furthering ourselves into the galaxy as we always see in science-fiction movies.

The truth is, science fiction could easily become science fact if we just step up to the plate and give NASA the funding that it truly deserves. Programs such as the Constellation program shouldn't be pushed back...they should be our now and today, instead of our tomorrows and our maybes.

Alternate History...or Alternate Story?

So...while looking at articles in the New York Times, one of them caught my eye.  Written by David Brooks, it tells about what Obama is trying to do to fix our economy.  But unlike other times, he's looking to go long term.  (see link below)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1


At point in the article, I couldn't hold back a grin when it said that Obama had apparently put up signs throughout the Whitehouse that said, "No Quick Fixes".  I thought:

'Imagine... You're going to an important meeting where you'll be talking to the head of the FBI about the need for immediate changes in gun protocol for agents, and suddenly you see a sign on the door that you're about to open.  It says, No Quick Fixes.  You think, 'Am I in the right place?' and then hesitatingly open the door, wondering what awaits you on the other side, and hoping he doesn't yell at you when you give him the paper in your hand.'

Anyway, I digress.

I have to admit, I like Obama's idea that we can't solve our economy with "quick-fixes" (such as bailouts for companies that are going belly up).  He sees that we need to have something long-term that will help us for future generations, ensuring that our children don't have to go through the same thing that we did.

However, I have to question a couple of things that he's doing.  He had the choice between health care and energy reform...and he chose energy first?  I mean, seriously.  People can survive on candles and boiling water if they have to, but they can't survive without healthcare that they can't afford.  I think his plans are good, but his priorities are just slightly confused.

                    OR

From the "Henhouse" to "My House"

I recently read an article on the New York Times website by Nicholas D. Kristof, called "Cleaning the Henhouse".  It addresses some interesting issues about what is going on in our modern food industry, specifically within the egg industry.  If you're aware of the recent recall on eggs, then you know what I'm talking about.  I wasn't really shocked to hear about all of what's going on.  However, here's something that I didn't know: 

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in 2005 suggesting that in 2000 there were about 182,000 cases of egg-caused salmonella in the United States, including 70 deaths. That means that even without an outbreak in the news, eggs with salmonella kill more than one American a week."

This is a direct quote from the article.  Here's a link to the actual article.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/opinion/02kristof.html?_r=1

The most fascinating thing for me, however, was the fact that I think I was one of the only one in my class who was aware of it before the teacher had brought it up.  In fact, because of my sister-in-law and my mom, I knew about it as soon as the announcement went out. 

Back at my house, my mom only buys organic food, which includes free-range eggs.  In the article, it mentions that salmonella (the reason for the recall of eggs) occurs more often when hens are in extremely enclosed spaces, which is usually how it is in industrial situations for production.

I am extremely grateful that my mom is all for the organics.  Don't know about you, but I'm very proud of the fact that my mom's all for the organics.  This way, I know I'm playing on the safe side...which is starting to look like the right side.