Anorexia Nervosa

I was looking at an article about eat disorders, the first thought that came to my head was that these people are probably too afraid to eat. So I went and searched up what it meant to have eating disorder and the what I found from Wikipedia was that it means a condition based on abnormal eating habits it can be either excessive or insufficient food intakes. As i kept reading the article i saw that a girl had anorexia. This is what i was thinking of when i saw the title of the article.
I went in deeper read about anorexia on the health guide section of the New York Times. I find it kind of sad how some people have these kind of eating problems, in my opinion i think this is caused by peer pressure. In society there are always people that are considered "abnormal" because they are somewhat different from us. Some people are afraid to gain the tinniest of weight because they are afraid they will be laughed at. I have seen people being laughed at just because they are slightly larger in size. So people try to lose as much weight as they can so they can fit in. Some people simply change their clothing styles to fit into society, which i find quite okay because they are not really doing any harm to themselves. Anorexia is a bigger problem because our body needs a certain amount of food to keep us healthy. True, we might gain weight because we eat but if we don't eat it will create a greater harm. I don't like to hear people saying how others are fat even when they have a weight which fall into the average weight of a teenager, they call them fat just because they are heavier than them. 
People should be themselves instead of trying to be like the rest of the world. If everyone tried to be normal than everyone would be the same. People would think only a certain brand of clothes are "cool" or a certain type of hairstyle is "cool" so it would be likely many people would have the same styles and same clothes. A lot of people would look alike, so where would be the fun in life? People should be different because normal is just too boring.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/anorexia-nervosa/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Cholera in Haiti

“A cholera outbreak has killed scores of people in central Haiti, President Rene Preval has confirmed.” At least 196 people have died and so many others have been hospitalized because of Cholera. The worst infected are the kids and elderly, like always. They got infected because of the water they drink, not only did they suffer from the earthquake from before now there is a outbreak of cholera.


Cholera is an easily treatable disease. A person who has Cholera should rehydrated immediately so all they have to do is have administration of oral rehydration salts to replace lost fluids. A person would think that with this kind of easy treatment less people would die from it. So why is it that people in Haiti are dying from this kind of disease?

We sometimes spend money everyday to buy things we don’t really need even I do sometimes spend money wastefully. The government also spends a lot of money on unimportant things, they fund for different technologies created everyday. Like the invisibility cloak, why spend money on unnecessary things when we can do so much more with that amount of money. I bet the invisibility cloak costs a lot of money, if we take one fifths of the amount spent on the cloak we can help that people in Haiti who are suffering form Cholera. This is why I say people invent things for their own gains, rather then spending some money to buy some rehydration salt for the people in Haiti we go buy some unnecessary things. I hope that things can turn out well for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11608551
http://www.who.int/topics/cholera/treatment/en/index.html

Should a Sociopath go to jail?

This question has bothered me for quite awhile. I remember I heard a law stating that psychopaths who kill cant go to jail instead they go to insane asylums to treat their mental illness (apparently it is not their fault they kill others when they are mentally ill).
Basically this article is saying a male named Yang Jiaqin suffers from hallucinations so he attacked a 63-year- old neighbor, Wu Wenguang, and struck him in the head with an ax. When Mr. Wu was in the hospital getting stitches for his wounds the police chief said to him ““When crazy people hurt somebody, there is nothing we can do.” After a few days Mr. Yang attacked three innocent kids when they were leaving school. He used a cleaver to slash at a first grader, then he turned to a 8-year-olf and sliced his arm and neck, the third boy who was 14-years-old escaped with a slash on his shoulder because he “fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Please don’t hurt me,’ After leaving the crime scene Mr. Yang killed a 70-year-old woman who was making firecrackers, and a man who was watching a television drama on his sofa. He slashed the man’s wife and a girl drawing well water. Later on Mr. Yang got captured and got sent a psychiatric hospital.
I am speechless when I read this article, I don’t know what to feel exactly. Many people say that it is not their fault when they go on a rampage since being a sociopath is largely genetic, but isn’t it still killing. If this sociopath took a life doesn’t that mean that their life should be taken too? There is a saying “an eye for an eye and a life for a like” but does that really apply to this scenario? I feel really confused when I think of this topic because a part of me feels like no matter who kills it is still wrong but another part of me feels like those sociopaths wasn’t thinking clearly when they killed so its not really their fault. If these sociopaths are only sent to a hospital for treating their mental illness then what of the families that had their beloved killed? Do we just ignore them when they are weeping for their dead loved ones just because this killer wasn’t able to control himself? In my perspective I think both sides are immoral because if one supports the killer it would be unfair to the family in sorrow but if one was to stand for the family and demand the killer to go to jail it would be unfair to the killer because it wasn’t their choice to kill.
One may think I am cruel to say that the sociopath shouldn’t go to jail for killing but the thing is, we can’t blame it on a person that didn’t have a choice. This person, or in this case Mr. Yang, didn’t have the option to leave the person alive or not. Gandhi once said, “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind” it means that we can’t always take revenge because if this cycle continues nothing good will ever come from it. It is wrong to let the sociopath go but it is more wrong to arrest a man/ woman for something he did not have control of.


Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11psych.html?pagewanted=1&hp

A Huge Step Forward or A Huge Step Backward

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11686303

"Scientists in the UK have demonstrated a flexible film that represents a big step toward the "invisibility cloak" made famous by Harry Potter."-Jason Palmer
In this article it talks about this flexible film that can manipulate light to render objects invisible. So maybe there are still some work that need to be done to get the invisible cloak like the ones in Harry Potter but no doubt that with our advanced technology scientist can probably create one perhaps in less then 5 years. What happens when they create this kind of cloak? "Physicists have hailed the approach a "huge step forward" but to me this is a huge step backward because in my eyes new technology never end well. It is true that a invisible cloak can be of good use but what if a person of a evil intention got ahold of it. A person could steal and the camera won't even catch this person because he/ she was invisible. It is true that a item is not good or bad it is how it is used. A hammer can be used to nail, nails but a hammer can be used to wack someone on the head and kill them. I am not saying that it is wrong to invent this cloak because there are still some good use to it but I think it is better not to invent it. If God wanted us to be invisible he would have create a invisibility cloak for us when he created Earth. It is strange how almost all the new technologies might go agaisnt god, eventhough some are there to help us. I think that we shouldn't invent more things like these because we don't really need it and I think that we invent these type of new things because humans are to greedy and they are not satisfied with what they have now. We keep inventing new things and we never stop because we want to step beyond the boundry that is set for us in the world. This new invention will bring us backward and hurt us because this new invention so capable of so many different things if a person uses it in a wrong way.
I think this cloak is a bad idea!

Creation vs. Evolution

A few weeks ago in my language arts class we were talking about different creation stories, including the Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. About two weeks ago in my science seminar class we talked about evolution. It got me thinking about how the world actually started and the fact that science and religion can never really agree with each other. Science is all about hard facts whereas religions are more about beliefs. The only similarities that those two have is that both are trying to give a reason for the origins of everything. In science the world began with the Big Bang and soon things settled and animals evolved to survive; in religion it says that god created the world in six days.

Personally I am not a very religious person so I don't even believe in god(at least I don't think I do). The question that I have is that if god did created the world in six days then who created god? Or that if it was one divine god that create the world then why are there so many different religions that believe in so many different gods? There is no proof that god made things appear, but at the same time there is also no proof on something that god made happen out of thing air.

I think the idea of the Big Bang and evolution seems more likely then god because for me, I like to hear the evidence before actually believing in what someone told me. Evolution makes sense to me because it states that we humans and many other living organisms evolve because we need to survive and those that don't are doomed. We have to evolve because the things around us are always changing and i believe it because it makes sense to me. But I am not judging anyone who believes in god, all i am saying is that evolution seems more logical then creation. Science might explain to us that how we come to be and science might be around us everyday but it doesn't give us hope. Religion is something people belive in so that people can feel comfort and it can get some people to become more ethical becuase they believe in a higher being that might punish them if not.

http://www.keacher.com/files/comics/evolution_large.png

Is Assisting Suicide Moral?

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is known as Doctor Death he "helps many people who are badly affected by their serious health conditions to hug death." He helps them commit suicide in a sort of way so they won't have to suffer anymore.
So the big question that everyone is debating about is whether or not this is moral. Is it okay to kill people just because they are suffering? It is after all considered murder.
I think it is okay that he is "killing" people to put them out of their misery. What is a life when you live it full of agony. For me I would rather die then live a life full of pain, but I probably wouldn't be able to do it once I am down to the decision. I think Dr, Jack Kevorkian is actually doing them a favor because probably many of them don't have the guts to kill themselves but they don't want to live either. If it wasn't for him these people that he helped killed would still be in a lot of pain. I think what he is doing is not considered murder because those people are the ones that wants to be killed so asks him to do it. It actually takes a lot of guts to do what he did because it takes a lot of guts to bring himself past the fact that the patients are dying in front of them. I actually support him just because he is putting the patients out of their misery but it won't be a excuse for some crazy psychopath to say that they killed the victims because they are in pain. He should be considered a hero, why should he not be happy to hook the patients up to the machines. The patients are literally better off dead.
On the other hand it brings out the question who gives him the right to kill these people? He is no god, he has no right to decided whether or not these people should live or not. What makes him different from another killers? He is still killing/ taking someone's family member or friend away.
Is it okay for him to be "killing" these people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/opinion/05tue3.html?_r=1

Gay commits suicide

According to the Declaration of Independence that all men are equal, but is that really true? In the article “Internet blamed in Rutgers suicide” it states that a gay student Tyler Clementi, committed suicide because his roommate recorded a video of him having a sexual encounter with another man. This was not the first time that a gay person has committed suicide "Tyler is the fourth highly publicized gay teen to kill himself in four weeks.” So if all men are equal then why do the gay guys have to hide themselves? If the gay guys don’t hide themselves then they would be harassed. There are many times those men who prefer men are being teased at just because of their indifference. How can they be themselves knowing that people might look at them differently and treat them differently? Why should gay people be an exception to what is said on the Declaration of Independence?

Further more, the roommate and the accomplice were only charged with invasion of privacy. The roommate should be charged for association with death; it was because of them that an 18-year-old committed suicide. They shouldn’t be recording anything personal without the approval of the person being recorded. I find it kind of sad that the roommate would do such a thing and post it on the Internet. Apparently some people these days just don’t have the brains to think of the consequences.

Something I found interesting was the title of this article, the part that states, “Internet blamed.” When I saw this I thought why would the Internet be blamed it was the roommate that killed Tyler. After thinking it through and reading the quote on the article, which says, “Cyberspace has given every one of us an almost magical ability to invade other people's lives,” I find this to be quite true. People can post anything on the Internet without consent from someone else because the Internet allows them to do so. The Internet is full of possibilities including invading other people’s lives. Everything has a good and bad side, the Internet can teach us and help us find information but it can also mislead us by telling us false information posted up by someone else. It is like a stapler, one can use it to staple paper but when used in a wrong way one can staple someone and hurt him or her. If the Internet is capable of doing bad then why do we use it? We can’t always set rules to prevent people from doing things because those rules don’t even work. In fact there might be more problems because some people like to break rules. Perhaps we should just ban the use of internet but that would also lead to so many inconvenience? That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be change, one day I think we will finally all agree on how to make the internet safe.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/03/Internet-blamed-in-Rutgers-suicide/UPI-35021286124844/