Prescription for Suicide

In less than a week, on November 6^th, not only are we going to vote for who we wish to be the President for the next four years, but also for many other issues, one being known as Question 2. If the majority of the state votes yes to this question, it would establish a legal prescription focused for suicidal acts. Doctors would have the power to prescribe drugs to be taken by a terminally ill patient to commit suicide. In my opinion, this is just wrong.

Why should we encourage terminally ill patients to end their lives voluntarily? I somewhat understand their reasoning behind this as it takes the miserable pain away from the dying patient, but this could be a huge mistake and there are other options to be considered. There have been many cases in which a doctor has estimated the amount of time their patient has left to live, but these are only educated guesses. Sometimes these patients can die sooner and other times they can last a lot longer than what they were originally told. My great grandmother has an inoperable growing aneurism and her doctor originally said she had less than a year to live, but fast-forwarding to today, it has almost been two years since they gave this news. A man I also know moved back to his home country when he was informed that he had cancer. Wanting to be with his family back home for the remainder of his life, he found out there that he really did not have cancer. So can doctors be wrong? Yes.

 I can only imagine that living with a terminal disease must be completely terrifying, but I think it is important to spend as much of your remaining time with your loved ones and enjoy the amount of time you have left. Giving these patients a choice to end their lives should not be permitted ever. Not only do they get complete control over their death, but also they can do this without informing their family and without the help of a doctor. There are other options to make a patient feel more comfortable in their last few months of life, so we should not make immediate death as the popular option to choose.

Trump's Selfish Deadline

Earlier last week, Trump made an announcement that he had a major revelation about Barack Obama that would consequentially, change the course of the elections in favor of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. What is wrong with Donald Trump? This is what immediately came to mind when I first saw his YouTube video with his unnecessary proposition to President Obama about a week ago. Everyone became skeptical and even the most outrageous rumors arose including a possible divorce between the President and his wife.

As he probably wanted, Trump got the attention of the whole nation, but the reaction was probably not what he had predicted it would be. As suspected, he had absolutely nothing on President Obama. Absolutely nothing. Is he trying to ruin his own reputation? Even his respected friend, Barbara Walters, called him foolish for this recent action. He once persuaded the President to release his birth certificate in order to prove that he was born in the United States, but now Trump is pushing his luck by requesting the release of his college transcripts and his Passport. Honestly, does Obama need to do this to prove himself? No. The United States government would never have allowed him to become President if he had not been born in this country. Everyone knows that so why won't Trump accept that? He wants attention.

By giving Obama a deadline, he is trying to show who has power, but will Obama succumb to that power? Probably not. Trump proposed that if these documents were released he would donate five million dollars to the charity of Obama's choice, but wouldn't the right thing to do is donate that money anyway?

In the midst, of Hurricane Sandy, Trump has pushed the deadline one day to November 1st at 12 PM. To me, this is just selfish. Trump is so focused on showing he has power over the President that he does not realize how the American people have been truly affected by this storm. If Obama does not release these documents, it will not prove him to be an awful President, but a responsible one as he is showing priority to the destruction that needs to be resolved in the wake of this hurricane rather than worrying about Trump's foolish demands.

NHL Lockout: Blame... Who?

A collective cry was heard across the nation earlier this year as hockey fans found out the devastating NHL news: a lockout. For players, this means striking against employers to get the money they feel they deserve. Before the start of the season, owners banned players from using training facilities and have suspended pay for players. For fans, NHL Lockout 2012 means no cheering on our favorite teams, no nail-biting overtime, no punch-throwing rivalry, no bloody noses or missing teeth until December, when the season is set to start almost two months late. The main issue in the players’ strike is, no surprise, money. But who should we blame -owners, players, or NHL commissioner Gary Bettman?

As commissioner of the NHL for the past 19 years, Gary Bettman has been in office for the last two NHL lockouts; the 1994-5 season and the 2004-5 season lockouts (Gary Bettman’s Legacy). The latter lockout cancelled the entire season, forcing fans all over the world to go without their NHL dosage. But how much of this is actually Bettman’s fault? Although an important cog in the hockey machinery, Bettman really has little power over the wishes of team owners. At the start of the 2004 season, Bettman attempted but failed to help players and owners reach an agreement in a dispute similar to that of this year. In the end, he cannot control what the players want or what the owners decide to give.

Players are on strike because their salary is being cut. Some people might think that this is out of greed, but think about it this way: If your boss cut your salary even though your performance has gotten better, you’d be pretty pissed as well. This is how NHL players see things. Hockey is not a dying sport; on the contrary, hockey has become much more popular over the last five years, especially here in Boston. More and more sports fans are tuning into the Canadian-born sport throughout the season. Tickets to Bruins games have been getting more expensive and sold out more often (trust me, I’ve tried and failed to get tickets for years). So, why should players get paid less when they are efficiently doing their job?

Owners want to cut the players’ share of hockey related revenue (the money earned from ticket sales and other aspects of the game) to 46-43%, when players currently receive 57% of the revenue (Lockout On After Day Without Talks). NHL players currently average $2.4 million, which isn’t exactly poverty level wages. Some may see this as players being selfish and craving more money. On the other hand, NHL players have actually agreed to cut some of their revenue, proving that they are not greedy. However, the amount they had agreed to give up was not as large as what the owners are now demanding; players offered to cut their share of the revenue from 57% to about 52%. Instead of taking this offer, owners wanted even more.

So while we wait impatiently for the lockout to end in December, remember that it is the avarice of the owners who deprive us of our precious Boston Bruins. 

Cancer Is Not a Fad

As the early days of October pass by, I become more excited for the upcoming season with every yellow leaf that falls, red apple that is picked and orange pumpkin that I pass.  However, it seems these favorite autumnal hues have a new pigment player on the seasonal stage.  What color? Pink, of course. 

As I walk through campus I oftentimes see a pink ribbon or sticker sported on a jacket lapel or notebook, or even an “I Love Boobies” bracelet on the wrists of younger supporters.  All this pink pride makes sense considering October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  While I fully support the battle against breast cancer and the effort to prevent the disease, I find myself asking why does breast cancer get all the attention? 

According to The National Cancer Institute, lung cancer claims the lives of four times as many people as breast cancer.  Considering this I wonder is there a Lung Cancer Awareness Month?   There is, it’s November actually.  Yet I don’t remember seeing any silver ribbons or bumper stickers.  I don’t think cancer should be politicized. Still, I can’t help but believe it’s unfair that certain types of cancers are supported far more than others. As a culture obsessed with the female figure, breasts especially, it seems that the idea of breast cancer may be "cuter" than other cancers.

    

Yet the advertisement, commercialism and consumerism of pink baubly knick-knacks that don’t really spread any “awareness” distract from the fact that cancer is not a trend.  Cancer doesn't discriminate from what’s “cute” or “appealing”.  Why breast cancer? Why not lung cancer?  Or the second most lethal type of cancer, colon cancer?  As cancer being the second leading cause of death in the US, I think we need to consider our donations and acknowledge how we can appropriately and fairly spread awareness. 

Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan's "Tipping Point"

According to Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan, America is a great nation of freedom, opportunity, and success. Apparently, 30% of US citizens also mooch off of our government and receive federal government handouts. Wait, what? According to a viral video of Ryan, 20% of Americans receive over 75% of their income from the federal government, making them sadly dependent on our government. Ryan also asserts another 20% of Americans receive 40% of their income from the federal government, making Americans reliant on our government, but not totally dependent. Ryan speaks of a “tipping point”, sort of calling this a time when our nation can no longer sustain so many dependent people, and aches from the effect these people have had on our great nation. 

Ryan lightens the mood of this slightly depressing news by reassuring us that 70% of people are either chasing after that American dream, or fantasizing about it. Is Ryan basically stating that those who are not reliant upon the federal government are currently living that dream? What about the people who are down on their luck, and can’t seem to rebound during these tough times we have found ourselves in? Are they part of the problem? How do we fix the problem? Ryan’s speech leaves much unsaid and unanswered, and generalizes far too much. One of Ryan’s key mistakes is that he claims that there is a cause and effect relationship between American’s financial independence and the American dream, when there truly is not. Simply because someone is financially independent does not mean they are living a dream. There are some people who receive no aid, yet live on the streets. Are they “living the American dream” simply because they do not accept aid? Ryan seems to be correlating two separate ideas that do not mesh. Being totally independent from government handouts does not equate to having a picture perfect life, though Ryan seems to think it does.

The true issue with Ryan (and Romney’s) speeches in relation to government reliance and the American dream is that they generalize far too much. The idea of the American dream can be a nice, comforting one, but it can also cause problems in the sense that everyone’s definition of a satisfying life is different. No one can say that someone living in a tiny one-bedroom apartment paid for by the government wants to have a welfare-reliant status, because everyone’s story is different. Maybe they lost all their savings in an investment gone awry. Maybe they went through a tough time and lost their job. For Ryan to state that 30% of people in this country want to be dependent on the federal government is erroneous and simply unfair. This situation cannot be seen as black and white. Ryan backs up his numbers through the tax federation. However, listing all the statistics in the world will not help Ryan prove that this “30%” actually enjoys living like this. Some people undoubtedly want to soak up all the benefits they can. We’ve all seen someone drive up in a $50,000 car and then buy milk and eggs using WIC or food stamps. However, we cannot let these people define a whole “30%”. Not everyone is looking for handouts and donations. Some people are just trying to get by and achieve their own variation of the American dream. Who is Ryan, Romney, or anyone else to try and undermine that by saying that this status is what he or she truly desires?

In America We Speak English

               In today’s American society there are far too many people that do not speak English who are not native to the United States. America is the home of the brave and the land of the free but it is also the land where English should be the dominant language. Why should English speaking Americans have to suffer and learn a new language just to be able to communicate with the people who emigrated here from other countries? It is not fair!

               There is nothing wrong with people moving here from other countries. As long as they are not terrorists or have any threat to the United States. When they do move here they should be forced to learn English so they can start to blend in and live in our country. If they are being allowed to live here in our free country it is the least they can do to learn our language.

               When Americans travel to other countries it is the same deal. While in a different country you need to speak their native language in order to communicate with them. How annoyed do people get when they are in their own country, speaking the native language of that country, and foreigners come in and try to continue living their lives without having to learn the native language? Let’s just say I get pretty annoyed when someone comes up to me asking me something in Spanish or a different language and I have to try and answer them with the Spanish that I remember from high school. It is so frustrating. When people travel to a foreign country they at least try to speak that native language instead of going there expecting everyone to speak their native language. Just like the expression “when in Rome,” well when in America speak English!

You Break It, You Buy It

Let's talk about how we try to enjoy our lives, then end up paying for our faults! Or accidents!

Everyday people get injurged. Now why should we pay a bill to get treated? Doesn't anyone want healthy and strong people in our world, or am I the only one?

Recently I got hives from what I found to be from an allergic reaction. I would itch throughout my nights and days until I got fed up and went to the hospital. At the time, I was on a health plan that only covered so much. After going to the hospital three times and an allergist twice, I ended up with bills adding up to more than $1000. Now tell me where I am going to get this money? I could only think why me. I didn't know I was allergic to someting. It wasn't my fault. I just wanted to get treated. 

I'll probably have those bills over my head for who knows how long. But all I know is... by the time I graduate college and if I have so much of even half of tuition in medical bills you better bet yourself Im paying for college first. My education is so much more important than paying to be healthy and alive. Clearly noone cares about this issue enough to make health care free, at least that's what it seems. 

I honestly do not see why people can not just go to doctors and get treated. The old saying "you break it, you buy it" must be true for all cases. We all deserve to be healthy and if that means to pay a $1000 medical bill just to get an ambulence ride, then bill collectors will have a fun time annoying people. 

I understand some people, or fiends, may try to get medication for all the wrong reasons but that's not everyone. These people should not be given medication unless hospitalized. 

Makes sense to me, what about you? 

Where Art Thou Sandy?

All over the news and on timelines of social networks are comments about the storm and I’m just sitting here watching Everybody Loves Raymond and drinking hot chocolate with extra fluff. I don’t think many people know exactly what we should be expecting from Sandy. So far Massachusetts hasn’t seen much damage. Just rain and heavy winds. A day before the storm was supposed to hit, I went to Costco with my mom the other day to stock up on food and water and there weren’t any more cases of water left. The checkout lines we’re flooded with people and their overflowing carriages. I know the weather in New England has been crazy the past year, but is this storm really supposed to be as bad in Massachusetts like the weathermen say or are people just freaking out because of the weather we’ve recently had?

We’ve had schools, stores, and work places shut down for two days, before the storm even arrived in Massachusetts. Obviously everyone is happy that we don’t have school or don’t have to go into work, but everyone overreacting about the storm, in result of the weathermen freaking out.

Do the weathermen know what they’re talking about or is it mandatory that they tell everyone it’s going to be worse than it is, so that if it does end up being bad, they won’t be to blame? Granted, it is better to be more prepared than not at all but nothing has happened in Western Mass. Hurricane Sandy is supposed to be “the perfect storm”, when about a year ago we’ve had a snowstorm that left us with more damage and without power for days on end. We have been told to stay off the roads and I’ve been out driving during the day and there’s been nothing but light rain and winds. Where art thou Sandy? She’s nowhere to be seen New England.

FSU's Forbidden Fruit

                College students are going to drink alcohol; it’s inevitable. Either by smuggling alcohol into dorms with water bottles, or searching for an off campus party, students will find ways to get drunk while living on a dry campus. Forbidding alcohol on campus is an attempt by college administration to keep students safe, but that does not always work out. It’s no secret that “thirsty Thursdays” tend to be a popular drinking night for students, and weekends are usually free reign for students to let loose get wasted. Many students drive to nearby apartments to drink with friends, and end up driving back to their resident halls later. Here at Framingham State, we have seen the dry campus policy backfire in the most deadly way.

                In December 2011, FSU lost a student due to a drinking and driving incident. The young woman was attending a party off campus and was driven back to campus by her intoxicated friend. The party ended in tragedy when the car crashed and the young woman was killed. This heartbreaking incident could have been avoided if FSU allowed alcohol on campus. The student could have been drinking in her dorm room or a friend’s dorm room, and wouldn’t have to drive or be driven. 

By allowing alcohol on campus, FSU would greatly diminish the risk of drunk driving. If students could drink on campus, they wouldn’t have to find campus parties and could drink in the safety of FSU’s boundaries. Avoid driving, and we avoid the deaths that are caused by intoxicated drivers. Instead, the school should implement a safe place for students to drink.

Many campuses have 21+ resident halls, which would allow students in those dorms to bring in a regulated amount of alcohol. As an FSU resident who turned 21 last year, I found it unfair that I could not drink in the place that I lived during the school year. Sometimes, it would have been nice to unwind after a week of classes with a beer or two. And since I was of legal age, why not? Because FSU forbids any alcohol. But when I wanted to head to a bar, I often found myself unable to find a driver willing to bring me back to campus. Which brings us back to the first issue – intoxicated driving. Our campus administrators need to think the alcohol policy through in order to keep out students safe. Let’s look at it this way: if FSU allowed alcohol on campus, there is a good chance that young woman may still be alive today. 

"You're Retarded"

There are so many terms that we use loosely in today’s society, like gay, stupid, and retarded. It is wrong. My freshman year roommate was completely against the world “retard”. Of course, I continued to say it anyway. If I said it around her, she would glare at me until I apologized. Deep down I really didn’t care. No matter how much she would tell me not to say the word “retard”, I would continue to say it anyway. It was like an unconscious habit. It just slipped out.

I know a young boy who has mental retardation and that doesn’t stop his family from using the word. His older brothers torture him. They want to make him tougher and stronger, I guess. The young boy doesn’t know what “retard” means, so he doesn’t care. Whenever I’m with this family and the older brothers are being mean (not viciously mean but messing around) to their little brother, I always tell them to stop. But then I realize that I do sort of the same thing when I call someone a “retard” or tell someone “they’re retarded”.  I’m a hypocrite.

It wasn’t until this year that my roommate and her boyfriend told me the word “retard” isn’t used in their hometown. I really tried to not say it. Ever since then I’ve really started to watch what I say to people, especially using the word “retard” or telling someone “they’re retarded”. Every time I go to say it, I think of a different word I could use. I think of my boyfriend’s little brother who has autism and Asperger’s before I use that word. People really need to think about what they say before they say it. The words you say can have a huge effect on someone without you even realizing it. Now, whenever I hear someone say that word, I always glare at them and tell them that they shouldn’t use it. And they shouldn’t.

Why is College So Expensive?

          It is ridiculous how much college costs these days. Why does something so important to attend just so you can get a job and be successful in the real world have to cost so much money? Most graduating high school seniors have plans to go to college to further their education and provide themselves with a future. So they go and pay thousands of dollars a year to get a degree in whatever major they choose at some college just so they can graduate and get that special piece of paper.
          Colleges basically suck every penny they can out of you. For starters, there are many schools that charge you an application fee that can sometimes be nonrefundable. So they are taking your money before you are even accepted into the school. Then if you are accepted, they charge you for everything under the sun like room and board, outrageously priced meal plans, parking on campus, overpriced books, classes and so much more. After charging you thousands of dollars for all of that the school will still have the audacity to put limitations on accessibility to things. They will limit or not even provide soap and paper towels for every bathroom on campus and will only provide hand sanitizer. Also, they will put limits on your meal plans such as the number of times you are allowed to swipe your card a week. So, say you got 14 meals a week and you only used 10, those other four meals don’t roll over to the next week they basically disappear.
          College is a place that prepares you for the real world and will better your chances in getting a job. But, college doesn’t prepare you for all the debt you will graduate with because you had to take out a bunch of loans so you could pay to go to college.

Is it appropriate for students and teachers to be friends on Facebook?

          The most common time for teens to get a Facebook account is between eighth grade and freshman year of high school. Facebook is a place where people can connect with friends, play games, share their interests, and talk to people. But teens are not the only ones with a Facebook account, there are adults who have them too. I know for a fact that at my high school there were a few teachers that had an account. Students would sometimes look up their teachers name in the search bar to see if they had an account. Some teachers made it really hard for you to find them because they would change their name to something that wouldn’t be easily found or recognized by students. When they did find a teacher who had one, they would send them a friend request. Some students did this just to be funny, find out more information about the teacher, or because they enjoyed having them as a teacher and talk to them regularly.

          Most of the teachers would deny students friend requests. As they should, because there is no reason why they need to be Facebook friends while the student is in the same school as the teacher works in. There are a couple of reasons why teachers being friends with students on Facebook is not a good idea. It crosses the boundary of professionalism where the teacher to student line gets crossed. There are liability reasons regarding sexual harassment that could put the teachers’ job in jeopardy or even get them fired. Also, parents would find it to be a little odd that a teacher is friends with their child on Facebook.

          I think students should not be Facebook friends with their teachers while they are still in the same school where that teacher works. I do however think that it is ok to keep in touch with a teacher who has helped you out with academic things (such as recommendation letters for college) because you and that teacher had some sort of connection on an academic level. I am Facebook friends with a teacher I had from high school but did not become friends until I had graduated from that high school she works at. Once I had graduated she was no longer my teacher, instead she was a person who I looked up to, looked to for academic guidance, and still have conversations with from time to time.

The Riskiest Publicity Stunt in History?

I don't understand all the fuss over the “Space Jump”. It's just a large publicity stunt that could have gone horribly wrong. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare revolving around trying to explain the tragic death of Felix Baumgartner? How can someone put a positive spin on someone hurdling back to the Earth as a fireball. Apparently, it was a risk that Red Bull was willing to take.

Red Bull risk paid off this time, there are many different degrees and possibilities that say the next time won't work out as well. This event allowed us to see that a human can break the sound barrier without becoming a fireball. Call me conservative if you must, but this dangerous stunt has disaster written all over it. Some people are risk takers and others enjoy safely staying on Earth for the entire day and not “space diving”. These thrill seekers are a different type of person that live on the edge and need quick fix of adrenaline to make their life more fulfilling. My main problem with the space jump is that everything needs to be perfect for Baumgartner to attempt it and this process dragged on for a little under a week. It seemed like the longer this stunt dragged on the more the question went from, “is he going to live?” to “is this even going to happen?” The scary part about this jump is that the article states that Baumgartner was having “panic attacks” as they were simulating the jump. If the man that broke the sound barrier was having anxiety issues what will happen to the next person put in this position? This article received a report about Baumgartner's mask fogging up once he was hovering above the Earth. I honestly can't think of anything worse than having to jump out of a space craft while being visually impaired by fog. This is very simple when it comes down to it, the “Space Jump” is one of the riskiest publicity stunts in history.  

Feel Free

There is over 2.3 million people incarcerated to date. The issue is some young adults are incarcerated for criminal actions, but I say that these young adults backgrounds may be the reason for their criminal intent.

The sentencing of whom are emotionally destruct from personal experiences should not be penalized but helped. As a society, I believe going about incarceration should be judged more off of psychological evaluations. I say this only because certain cases like abused children will likely to have behavioral issues with themselves and others that cause a criminal act. 

Because these children may have grown up in the wrong place, surrounding themselves with nothing but what is shown to them, destructive behavior is likely to occur. I firmly believe that with the help of groups and organizations some of the cases these people face could be better handled rather than in a jail cell. 

From personal experience I have seen a lot from traveling to different cities and states. What I have seen is a number of people, whom are good hearted people, who reach for a way out but then are sucked in by the reality of their lives. Peoples lives are not always good and they're not always bad. But when you are a baby you do not choose where you live and how you grow up, unfortunately. However, we grow up and learn from what we see and hear, then take our acknowledgements and apply them to our own lives. What people may learn may not be good but that's all they really to know because their environment they reside.

For example, a friend of mine whom resides in New Jersey had recently lost two friends and a brother due to shootings and car accidents in his city. This friend is at the age of nineteen years old. He, without saying his name, is very dear to me. This young man had than, after losing multiple loved ones, had gotten arrested for possession of marijuana. Having just gone through such a tragic time, getting arrested for 1 gram of marijuana, had to be very frustrating for him. I use this young man as an example because I know he is a good person and child to his mother. However, the police did not see anything but the fact he had marijuana in his possesion. The police do not know why and they most likely do not care. The point is that if the police knew the full story, a more reasonable action could have been taken. The courts could possibly given a couple anger management sessions or counseling sessions to figure out a different way of copping with anger and frustration instead of resulting to drugs. But instead arresting him only made the mind more confused and timid to the rest of the world. 

I feel as if I am repeating myself to make myself clear because I know this is an issue that needs to get attention.  Although prison may get your act together, for some it is not the right direction. People need more counseling, meetings, anger management, etc. Analyzing a persons' adolescence and treating him or her properly, other than throwing someone into a harmful environment where one could be hurt and make their situation worse would be acceptable.

New Baby Boomers?

Today in 2012, we see more and more young women producing children in society. In this day and age abortion or adoption, I feel, should be pushed more to those whom are underage and clearly can not support a newborn child. These young women seem to have not been taught how to stay protected with condoms or birth control and to why having a child is such a huge responsibility, at least that is how it is perceived. I understand a percentage of these women had been or can be sexually assaulted and have no choice but abortion, but that is not what I am trying to say. The young women I am talking of haven't even seen the 10th grade, some not the 8th grade. These are the young women, or teenagers, that should not even be thinking of having a child. Although some of these women are underage, they may or may not have the financial support from their families to help these upcoming mothers. 

My opinion is that if you can not withhold a job to take care of a child and yourself at the same time, to consider an abortion or adoption just because pregnancy is a life that does not know what life is yet. For a teenager to produce a child because she may think she's 'in love' with her partner, does not mean a baby will help or keep your situation strong. These young women want to have babies not thinking about the babies future and that is heartbreaking. I understand neither of these options, abortion or adoption, sound good, but these options still consider that whomever made this decision is mature and is still considered a mother because of that maturity. 

A mother possesses traits like loving, caring, responsible, financially stable and all around has good morals. These morals the mother carries is what distinguishes what is right and wrong for her child. These traits then generate from the mother to her child because children do what they see and say what they hear. They are the smartest beings and even they don't know it! These traits are hardly carried among young generation of teenagers having children; this is because teenagers do not know what life is yet and they are still babies of their mothers, still learning. 

So, considering abortion or better yet adoption would help the a baby's future based on the person you are, how much money you make, and how old you are.