7/6/10
Acceptance
Lets face it, there are things in life that are good, bad, great, terrible, and indifferent. You may feel down or lonely and the one thing that people tend to forget is to accept things that have happened. People tend to try and change what has already happened. You can't change what has happened, but you can understand, learn from, accept, grow, and change as a person from what has already happened. But the first step is to understand and accept that what has happened has happened and there is no turning around but there is always moving forward. If you can accept what has happened and grow as a human being and carry that knowledge forward from there then I believe that you, as a person, whomever you may be, can be a better person as a result. I just think more people need to learn how to accept circumstances. Because there is no going back but there is always the choice to move forward.
7/5/10
Music, the universal language
Whichever genre of music you prefer chances are that someone else likes the same type of music as you do. Music can bring people together, to vent emotions, to let someone know how you feel, get you through a rough day, or make a good day better.
I think if people appreciated music for music and not like a type or genre of music because it's "cool" or "trendy" or "it's what everyone is listening to," maybe music would actually be apreciated for more than a cool beat/rythem or a verse that stikes a chord, but for what actually went into making that particular song. What prompted the song writer to write the song? Why did the artist(s) decide to preform and go through with the song? What is behind the song? Why do you like it? If you like it at 'face value' or just because its cool or a good beat or good words, I don't really think that you would actually understand and grasp whatever message the artist(s) were trying to convey in their song(s).
So before you jump into "I love this band," or "I love this song," consider the message behind it, and not just take it for face value. If you still like the song/srtist then, then you can truly say you enjoy them for more than a catchy beat and a cool verse to go with it.
I think if people appreciated music for music and not like a type or genre of music because it's "cool" or "trendy" or "it's what everyone is listening to," maybe music would actually be apreciated for more than a cool beat/rythem or a verse that stikes a chord, but for what actually went into making that particular song. What prompted the song writer to write the song? Why did the artist(s) decide to preform and go through with the song? What is behind the song? Why do you like it? If you like it at 'face value' or just because its cool or a good beat or good words, I don't really think that you would actually understand and grasp whatever message the artist(s) were trying to convey in their song(s).
So before you jump into "I love this band," or "I love this song," consider the message behind it, and not just take it for face value. If you still like the song/srtist then, then you can truly say you enjoy them for more than a catchy beat and a cool verse to go with it.
7/3/10
Russian spies in the USA, the modern day cold war? Or just an over reaction?
So tonight's entry is going to be short and sweet.
Within the past month or so about five Russian spies were arrested while living in United States suburbs. They're charged with various forms of espionage charges. And no one living around these Russians knew anything. Now every news cast I have seen concerning this is mentioning the 'new cold war.' Okay my opinion is this: we don't know all the facts, and why don't we see what else is uncovered before we start crying 'cold war.' It may be just that, but I think it is far to soon for anyone to judge. So how about everyone just waits to see, and listens to what happens before we get all up in arms over this and persecute for a 'cold war' when it could be something totally different. We should just leave this up to our proper authorities, IE our federal government, and let them do their jobs.
Within the past month or so about five Russian spies were arrested while living in United States suburbs. They're charged with various forms of espionage charges. And no one living around these Russians knew anything. Now every news cast I have seen concerning this is mentioning the 'new cold war.' Okay my opinion is this: we don't know all the facts, and why don't we see what else is uncovered before we start crying 'cold war.' It may be just that, but I think it is far to soon for anyone to judge. So how about everyone just waits to see, and listens to what happens before we get all up in arms over this and persecute for a 'cold war' when it could be something totally different. We should just leave this up to our proper authorities, IE our federal government, and let them do their jobs.
7/2/10
Seniority in the work place
Seniority in the work place, it happens. What do I mean by this? Well lets say you just made friends with a co-worker at your new job, but you have only been at this 'new' job for less than a year, while your co-worker has been working at the same job seven years. And you and your co-worker aren't far off from each other in terms of how much you get paid per hour. You both ask for a raise, who is more likely to get it? The one working seven years or you? One would generally say the employee who has been there longer. Correct, generally speaking. But what if you feel that you are just as deserving or more deserving depending how well you both perform at work and the quality of work that is done; even how many hours you may clock during a regular work week. Now who is more likely to get said raise, you or them?
In my opinion how long one has been at a job should come last and 'used' only in extenuating circumstances. If you and said co-worker have the same job title, work almost the same amount of hours, you both are within $5.00 pay per hour of each other, and you both work just as hard. So you both, in theory, should have equal opportunity of getting a raise, though your boss may not out right say it, the deciding factor for them is not how well you both perform at the job, it's who has seniority. If it isn't a raise it may be other perks, such as extra vacation time, while if you may want extra days off, you'll need to jump through more hoops, just because one has been there longer than you have. Is it unfair, yes it is.
That happened to me once. I had this job in a restaurant throughout high school. I though for sure I would get a raise in pay over my co-worker who had only been there six more months than me. I instead got fired in January of 2007 after I had been working hard there at the same job for almost four years, and my co-worker (also a dishwasher, much like myself) got to keep his job, and got a raise. He, in my opinion, did not deserve it, because of how much he slacked when he was supposed to be working and how many times he would show up and leave early for his shift. Things like that are unfair to those of us who genuinely work hard and give their job their all and don't get the 'reward,' because someone else got it just for the sheer and utter fact that the other person has been working there longer than you have.
In my opinion how long one has been at a job should come last and 'used' only in extenuating circumstances. If you and said co-worker have the same job title, work almost the same amount of hours, you both are within $5.00 pay per hour of each other, and you both work just as hard. So you both, in theory, should have equal opportunity of getting a raise, though your boss may not out right say it, the deciding factor for them is not how well you both perform at the job, it's who has seniority. If it isn't a raise it may be other perks, such as extra vacation time, while if you may want extra days off, you'll need to jump through more hoops, just because one has been there longer than you have. Is it unfair, yes it is.
That happened to me once. I had this job in a restaurant throughout high school. I though for sure I would get a raise in pay over my co-worker who had only been there six more months than me. I instead got fired in January of 2007 after I had been working hard there at the same job for almost four years, and my co-worker (also a dishwasher, much like myself) got to keep his job, and got a raise. He, in my opinion, did not deserve it, because of how much he slacked when he was supposed to be working and how many times he would show up and leave early for his shift. Things like that are unfair to those of us who genuinely work hard and give their job their all and don't get the 'reward,' because someone else got it just for the sheer and utter fact that the other person has been working there longer than you have.
7/1/10
Art
Art, something associated in what you may see in Le Louvre, or music, poetry, some may even say graffiti is art as well.
In my opinion art is something to be created, adored, something that is truly beautiful in its own unique way, and something that may even move you.
But lately there has been some artists, that have shock art. Something of which does not appeal to me at all. But the growing industry of art seems to be torn with those of whom shock art appeals to, those of whom it doesn't, and those who are indifferent to this newer art. In my art history class in college a few semesters ago we learned about shock art. Some of the images are rather...odd. But that is just my opinion. One of the images that was shown to the class was a tank with something in it, and supposedly the tank was filled with human urine. EW! I can almost wrap my head around this logic....almost. I rather stick to my traditional Picasso's thank you very much. You may argue that for their time all the Picasso's of that time, that their art, in that era, may just as well have been 'shock art' to the people living in that era. According to Wikipedia, shock art is defined as, "a contemporary art that incorporates disturbing imagery, sound or scents to create a shocking experience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art). Now unless I am mistaken, artists, such as, Picasso weren't trying to 'shock' anyone, they simply wanted to make money, create art, and put there message out there through their art/sculptures/etc. Whatever that message may have been, depending on the work of art/type of art, and the artist themselves. The 'old school' works of art used a lot of trickery within their images to catch ones eye, intrigue them, and make them think. One of the most famous ones is the Mona Lisa, which is an oil paining by Da Vinci made in the sixteenth century. It is now held in Le Louvre in Paris, France. When one thinks of the Mona Lisa, they tend to think of the most popular question, is she really smiling? You can look at it forever and could probably never figure it out, unless you're Da Vinci himself. Now that's part of the 'illusion' I mentioned earlier. Now I could be wrong, but I do not think artists, like Da Vinci, were all out to shock you, much unlike the shock artists of today. If they want to do shock art and people want to spend money on it, great for them. But I wish we heard more about art, much like Picasso and Da Vinci did. More of the balance between the 'old,' and the 'new' forms of art.
In my opinion art is something to be created, adored, something that is truly beautiful in its own unique way, and something that may even move you.
But lately there has been some artists, that have shock art. Something of which does not appeal to me at all. But the growing industry of art seems to be torn with those of whom shock art appeals to, those of whom it doesn't, and those who are indifferent to this newer art. In my art history class in college a few semesters ago we learned about shock art. Some of the images are rather...odd. But that is just my opinion. One of the images that was shown to the class was a tank with something in it, and supposedly the tank was filled with human urine. EW! I can almost wrap my head around this logic....almost. I rather stick to my traditional Picasso's thank you very much. You may argue that for their time all the Picasso's of that time, that their art, in that era, may just as well have been 'shock art' to the people living in that era. According to Wikipedia, shock art is defined as, "a contemporary art that incorporates disturbing imagery, sound or scents to create a shocking experience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art). Now unless I am mistaken, artists, such as, Picasso weren't trying to 'shock' anyone, they simply wanted to make money, create art, and put there message out there through their art/sculptures/etc. Whatever that message may have been, depending on the work of art/type of art, and the artist themselves. The 'old school' works of art used a lot of trickery within their images to catch ones eye, intrigue them, and make them think. One of the most famous ones is the Mona Lisa, which is an oil paining by Da Vinci made in the sixteenth century. It is now held in Le Louvre in Paris, France. When one thinks of the Mona Lisa, they tend to think of the most popular question, is she really smiling? You can look at it forever and could probably never figure it out, unless you're Da Vinci himself. Now that's part of the 'illusion' I mentioned earlier. Now I could be wrong, but I do not think artists, like Da Vinci, were all out to shock you, much unlike the shock artists of today. If they want to do shock art and people want to spend money on it, great for them. But I wish we heard more about art, much like Picasso and Da Vinci did. More of the balance between the 'old,' and the 'new' forms of art.
6/30/10
Compulsive spending (aka the "shopaholics")
Compulsive spending is ones "need" to shop. Spending more money than one has, or uses money that one has reserved for other things, such as paying bills, mortgage/rent, etc., and they spend it on items that they don't need but feel as though they do need the item(s) and cannot live without buying that particular item(s) right then and there.
Some may laugh it off, even make fun of this type of behavior. For example, the movie, Confessions of a Shopaholic. Like anything else, shopaholics can go to treatment/programs and even get the support they need to make a budget and stick to it, essentially breaking the cycle one step at a time, as one may do if they were a cigarette smoker, on drugs, or even an alcoholic. Granted every program and every person is unique and different, and those seeking help should seek a person/group/place that best fits them and their needs.
I know I need to live within a budget, but I see things all the time I would love to get on the spot, but the way I cope is I remind myself I am on a budget, and if I really feel as if I want/need said item(s), I put them on a wish list and when I have enough money I go out and get the item(s). Though one of my friends is a compulsive shopper, and they sometimes don't have enough money for food, gas for their car, bills, rent, and even their college tuition. They had to drop out of school because their spending habits had gotten so bad that they no longer had enough money to pay their college. Seeing that happen is the exact reason why I try my hardest to stay on a budget for myself.
Some may laugh it off, even make fun of this type of behavior. For example, the movie, Confessions of a Shopaholic. Like anything else, shopaholics can go to treatment/programs and even get the support they need to make a budget and stick to it, essentially breaking the cycle one step at a time, as one may do if they were a cigarette smoker, on drugs, or even an alcoholic. Granted every program and every person is unique and different, and those seeking help should seek a person/group/place that best fits them and their needs.
I know I need to live within a budget, but I see things all the time I would love to get on the spot, but the way I cope is I remind myself I am on a budget, and if I really feel as if I want/need said item(s), I put them on a wish list and when I have enough money I go out and get the item(s). Though one of my friends is a compulsive shopper, and they sometimes don't have enough money for food, gas for their car, bills, rent, and even their college tuition. They had to drop out of school because their spending habits had gotten so bad that they no longer had enough money to pay their college. Seeing that happen is the exact reason why I try my hardest to stay on a budget for myself.
6/29/10
Romantic Relationships
It has been my experience that romantic can be scary, and a lot of hard work. One may be afraid to loose one they care deeply for or even deeply love. Those that are in or have had a romantic relationship all know the fear of getting hurt, the rejection, or even the sad realization that their relationship is over, which is where the break up comes in. A couple can go many ways, staying friends, not speaking, friends with benefits, or leaving the future open to the possibility of getting back together/seeing what the future holds.
I have had several romantic relationships over the past few years. I am currently single. I only remain in contact with two of my ex boyfriends. All but one ended on good terms, we'd stay friends for a while but slowly drift as time went on. In fact one of my ex-boyfriends is currently my best, and closest (all non sexually) friends. The one ex-boyfriend that ended on bad terms, he wanted to have sex, and I was not ready, so I wouldn't give in just to keep him. He got upset and left, we ended up later down the road building a friendship. We ended up drifting and no longer have any sort of contact.
But I believe with enough compromise, communication, hard work, trust, a feeling of love & security, a feeling that neither party is rushed/pressured/only wanted for one thing and one thing only, and a good mixture of two people, I believe anyone can have a happy romantic relationship. That does not always mean that it will last forever though. Life does happen, and no one has the crystal ball to look into the future and predict any outcome. And as life changes, so do we.
I have had several romantic relationships over the past few years. I am currently single. I only remain in contact with two of my ex boyfriends. All but one ended on good terms, we'd stay friends for a while but slowly drift as time went on. In fact one of my ex-boyfriends is currently my best, and closest (all non sexually) friends. The one ex-boyfriend that ended on bad terms, he wanted to have sex, and I was not ready, so I wouldn't give in just to keep him. He got upset and left, we ended up later down the road building a friendship. We ended up drifting and no longer have any sort of contact.
But I believe with enough compromise, communication, hard work, trust, a feeling of love & security, a feeling that neither party is rushed/pressured/only wanted for one thing and one thing only, and a good mixture of two people, I believe anyone can have a happy romantic relationship. That does not always mean that it will last forever though. Life does happen, and no one has the crystal ball to look into the future and predict any outcome. And as life changes, so do we.
6/28/10
Drugs
Drug use, legal or illegal, is one of the largest entities in the USA. People are addicted to all kinds of drugs, from caffeine to nicotine to prescription pills to illegal narcotics.
Some, for various reasons, want to legalize marijuana. Their views on that are their own. I personally torn about it. I can see all the potential revenue from taxes and what not, but at the same time I see almost all of my friends getting high from weed, acid, mushrooms (shrooms), and other drugs. So all "profit" ideas aside, I see my friends dropping out of school, spending almost all their money/paychecks on drugs or money/paychecks on gas so they can go get the drugs. A lot of my friends have also gotten arrested AT LEAST once for a drug related charge. My friends, and those similar to them, love listening to music straight from the 60's. Bands like, The Grateful Dead, Phish, The Allman Brothers Band, Bob Marley, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. Not saying there is anything wrong with these artists, I happen to love all of these bands/artists. But I think a lot of people I see try to recreate a lot of that "Woodstock feeling" that you would have gotten straight out of the 1960's. Listening to music/bands like this while getting high without a care of the effects of the drugs on their body. Some just do it because their friends are, and they want to "look cool." Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with people simply enjoying this music because they honestly enjoy it, and not because its their "getting stoned soundtrack(s)."
I honestly think that drugs, like pot, are truly is the "gateway drug". Many of my friends have started with weed and then moved to acid, shrooms, and various other harder drugs. So I am very wary of those who are pro weed legalization, seeing how so many people start with weed and then move on to other harder drugs, and quite honestly are becoming drug addicts at younger and younger ages, and going down that long, hard, risky, and potentially deadly road. I have seen far to many lives ruined, lost, or on that definite route because they started doing drugs for whatever reason, no matter their drug(s) of choice, how/why they choose to start, even if they are that "hippie stoner" I was referring to earlier.
Two years ago a well loved guy in our town (high school aged, and no names are mentioned out of respect to the family) was murdered, his murderer is still at large. Not to long after his death they arrested a kid who used to sell him pot. A lot of people I have spoken to since the demise of someone so well loved, think that his murder was drug related. I'm not sure if it was or not, but it is a definite possibility. So not only can drugs kill a person on the inside, change their behavior/thinking pattern/etc, it can get them killed too.
To make a long story short, I don't think we should continue letting our citizens use drugs, they should have tougher penalties.
Some, for various reasons, want to legalize marijuana. Their views on that are their own. I personally torn about it. I can see all the potential revenue from taxes and what not, but at the same time I see almost all of my friends getting high from weed, acid, mushrooms (shrooms), and other drugs. So all "profit" ideas aside, I see my friends dropping out of school, spending almost all their money/paychecks on drugs or money/paychecks on gas so they can go get the drugs. A lot of my friends have also gotten arrested AT LEAST once for a drug related charge. My friends, and those similar to them, love listening to music straight from the 60's. Bands like, The Grateful Dead, Phish, The Allman Brothers Band, Bob Marley, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc. Not saying there is anything wrong with these artists, I happen to love all of these bands/artists. But I think a lot of people I see try to recreate a lot of that "Woodstock feeling" that you would have gotten straight out of the 1960's. Listening to music/bands like this while getting high without a care of the effects of the drugs on their body. Some just do it because their friends are, and they want to "look cool." Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with people simply enjoying this music because they honestly enjoy it, and not because its their "getting stoned soundtrack(s)."
I honestly think that drugs, like pot, are truly is the "gateway drug". Many of my friends have started with weed and then moved to acid, shrooms, and various other harder drugs. So I am very wary of those who are pro weed legalization, seeing how so many people start with weed and then move on to other harder drugs, and quite honestly are becoming drug addicts at younger and younger ages, and going down that long, hard, risky, and potentially deadly road. I have seen far to many lives ruined, lost, or on that definite route because they started doing drugs for whatever reason, no matter their drug(s) of choice, how/why they choose to start, even if they are that "hippie stoner" I was referring to earlier.
Two years ago a well loved guy in our town (high school aged, and no names are mentioned out of respect to the family) was murdered, his murderer is still at large. Not to long after his death they arrested a kid who used to sell him pot. A lot of people I have spoken to since the demise of someone so well loved, think that his murder was drug related. I'm not sure if it was or not, but it is a definite possibility. So not only can drugs kill a person on the inside, change their behavior/thinking pattern/etc, it can get them killed too.
To make a long story short, I don't think we should continue letting our citizens use drugs, they should have tougher penalties.
6/27/10
Christ, crusified on the cross? Or maybe not..
Most of us are familiar with the stories that Jesus Christ was crusified on the cross. Infact the cross is the traditional and iconic symbol for Catholics. But according to one article there may be little evidence that Christ was actually crusified on a cross according to one Sweedish scholar. According to the studies done by the Sweedish, he says that Christ may have been put to death by another method. This is all outlined in a 400 page thesis by Gunnar Samulesson who is a theologin at the University of Gothenburg. Gunnar does not disbute that Christ died on Calvary hill, but he argues 'the New Testament is infact more ambiguous about the exact method of the Messiah's execution than many Christains are aware."
The artilce goes on to say, "When the Gospels refer to the death of Jesus, they just say that he was forced to carry a 'stauros' out to Calvary.' The article also states, "many scholars have interpreted that ancient Greek noun as meaning 'cross,' and the verb derived from it, 'anastauroun,' as implying crucifixion. But during his three-and-a-half-year study of texts from around 800 BC to the end of the first century AD, Samuelsson realized the words had more than one defined meaning. ''Stauros' is actually used to describe a lot of different poles and execution devices,' he says. 'So the device described in the Gospels could have been a cross, but it could also have been a spiked pole, or a tree trunk, or something entirely different.' In turn, 'anastauroun' was used to signify everything from the act of 'raising hands to suspending a musical instrument.' The manner in which Jesus died is further thrown into question by Samuelsson's discovery that crucifixion may have been an unusual form of punishment in the Roman Empire. Descriptions of crucifixions contained in the thousands of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek manuscripts he examined most commonly referred to dead prisoners being placed on some form of suspension device, or living captives skewered on stakes. The first century Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger, for example, wrote about seeing a great many prisoners of war on "crosses" after one campaign. But the scribe then describes how a large number of the dead had been impaled. 'If you search for ancient texts that specifically mention the act of crucifixion [as we understand it today]" he says, "you will end up with only two or three examples.' That revelation stands in stark contrast to claims that appear in many books on the historical Jesus, as well as more general surveys of life under Roman rule, which state that prisoners were routinely nailed to crosses. (The Encylopaedia Britannica, for example, says crucifixion was an "important method of capital punishment" in Rome). Of course, this lack of hard evidence doesn't mean that the Roman Empire was a crucifix-free zone. Samuelsson suspects that crucifixion was simply one of a great many methods of execution employed across the empire. He notes that Flavius Josephus -- a Jewish historian and adviser to three Roman emperors in the 1st century -- recorded how Roman soldiers were allowed to use their 'wicked minds in various ways to execute' prisoners captured during a Jewish uprising. This suggests that the method of Jesus' execution may have been decided by legionnaires stationed at Calvary, and not by the state. 'If we put this on the table, and think that the execution of Jesus was the result of the wicked mind of the soldiers at that very point, we can't know how he could have been executed,' Samuelsson says. 'The executions of that day could have taken a completely different form from ones the day before.' The Swedish scholar isn't sure exactly why the crucifix went on to become the dominant Christian motif. But this symbol only seems to have become fixed in followers' minds long after Jesus' death, as the first T and X shaped crucifixes appear in Christian manuscripts around the 2nd century AD."
Upon reading this article has me intreaged enought to do some research to see if Christ was actually crusified on the cross, as we know it today, or was he actually put to death another way. I think this article, true or not, makes you think that what we actually believe and read may not be true just because a pastor/priest/reverened/etc tells us so. Though everyone has a right to believe and preach what they want, and we all have a right to follow what we choose. Though in my eyes we shouldn't do so blindly, and actually know all the facts of what we believe and follow. We are all entitled to our opinion and our beliefs, and if our beliefs don't do harm to one's self or to others in any way shape or form, then why should anyone judge it, including myself?
In closing, regardless if you believe in Jesus, or not, or you believe he was crusified on the cross, or not, or whatever it is you believe, I believe that is your choice do so as long as you don't cause harm to yourself or others and you follow your heart, then go for it, and follow whatever it is you believe in.
For more information on this article (also where I got my informations/citations) please visit:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666
The artilce goes on to say, "When the Gospels refer to the death of Jesus, they just say that he was forced to carry a 'stauros' out to Calvary.' The article also states, "many scholars have interpreted that ancient Greek noun as meaning 'cross,' and the verb derived from it, 'anastauroun,' as implying crucifixion. But during his three-and-a-half-year study of texts from around 800 BC to the end of the first century AD, Samuelsson realized the words had more than one defined meaning. ''Stauros' is actually used to describe a lot of different poles and execution devices,' he says. 'So the device described in the Gospels could have been a cross, but it could also have been a spiked pole, or a tree trunk, or something entirely different.' In turn, 'anastauroun' was used to signify everything from the act of 'raising hands to suspending a musical instrument.' The manner in which Jesus died is further thrown into question by Samuelsson's discovery that crucifixion may have been an unusual form of punishment in the Roman Empire. Descriptions of crucifixions contained in the thousands of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek manuscripts he examined most commonly referred to dead prisoners being placed on some form of suspension device, or living captives skewered on stakes. The first century Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger, for example, wrote about seeing a great many prisoners of war on "crosses" after one campaign. But the scribe then describes how a large number of the dead had been impaled. 'If you search for ancient texts that specifically mention the act of crucifixion [as we understand it today]" he says, "you will end up with only two or three examples.' That revelation stands in stark contrast to claims that appear in many books on the historical Jesus, as well as more general surveys of life under Roman rule, which state that prisoners were routinely nailed to crosses. (The Encylopaedia Britannica, for example, says crucifixion was an "important method of capital punishment" in Rome). Of course, this lack of hard evidence doesn't mean that the Roman Empire was a crucifix-free zone. Samuelsson suspects that crucifixion was simply one of a great many methods of execution employed across the empire. He notes that Flavius Josephus -- a Jewish historian and adviser to three Roman emperors in the 1st century -- recorded how Roman soldiers were allowed to use their 'wicked minds in various ways to execute' prisoners captured during a Jewish uprising. This suggests that the method of Jesus' execution may have been decided by legionnaires stationed at Calvary, and not by the state. 'If we put this on the table, and think that the execution of Jesus was the result of the wicked mind of the soldiers at that very point, we can't know how he could have been executed,' Samuelsson says. 'The executions of that day could have taken a completely different form from ones the day before.' The Swedish scholar isn't sure exactly why the crucifix went on to become the dominant Christian motif. But this symbol only seems to have become fixed in followers' minds long after Jesus' death, as the first T and X shaped crucifixes appear in Christian manuscripts around the 2nd century AD."
Upon reading this article has me intreaged enought to do some research to see if Christ was actually crusified on the cross, as we know it today, or was he actually put to death another way. I think this article, true or not, makes you think that what we actually believe and read may not be true just because a pastor/priest/reverened/etc tells us so. Though everyone has a right to believe and preach what they want, and we all have a right to follow what we choose. Though in my eyes we shouldn't do so blindly, and actually know all the facts of what we believe and follow. We are all entitled to our opinion and our beliefs, and if our beliefs don't do harm to one's self or to others in any way shape or form, then why should anyone judge it, including myself?
In closing, regardless if you believe in Jesus, or not, or you believe he was crusified on the cross, or not, or whatever it is you believe, I believe that is your choice do so as long as you don't cause harm to yourself or others and you follow your heart, then go for it, and follow whatever it is you believe in.
For more information on this article (also where I got my informations/citations) please visit:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666
6/26/10
Abortion
I believe that if a woman wants to legally and safely get an abortion in the USA, she should have that right without protesters, pressure, or feeling ashamed for any reason. But upon researching some of the statistics on abortion I was a little shocked at the statistics.
Some of the stats are as follows (and my info was obtained from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html):
"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.
Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.
In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; half have had at least one previous abortion.
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.
Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%.
Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%.
Thirty percent of abortions occur to non-Hispanic black women, 36% to non-Hispanic white women, 25% to Hispanic women and 9% to women of other races.
Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.
Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.
About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100-199% of the federal poverty level. (Poverty guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 USC 9902(2)).
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
Now my biggest thing is why isn't there more accessible treatments, therapy (if needed), care, etc., for the women who are going for abortions, some of which don't have the money for an abortion, for what ever reason. And if it is accessible why isn't it better known that it is AT LEAST there? I think if we ALL took a good hard look at some of these numbers and facts, and try to put ourselves in the shoes of a woman who is facing this/planning to do this, maybe we all wouldn't be so close minded about the subject, and try to be a little more understanding towards it. Now I'm not saying fully accept it depending on who you are and what your beliefs/values are, but at least try to understand a little more.
Some of the stats are as follows (and my info was obtained from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html):
"Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.
Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.
In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; half have had at least one previous abortion.
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.
Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%.
Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%.
Thirty percent of abortions occur to non-Hispanic black women, 36% to non-Hispanic white women, 25% to Hispanic women and 9% to women of other races.
Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.
Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.
About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100-199% of the federal poverty level. (Poverty guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 USC 9902(2)).
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."
Now my biggest thing is why isn't there more accessible treatments, therapy (if needed), care, etc., for the women who are going for abortions, some of which don't have the money for an abortion, for what ever reason. And if it is accessible why isn't it better known that it is AT LEAST there? I think if we ALL took a good hard look at some of these numbers and facts, and try to put ourselves in the shoes of a woman who is facing this/planning to do this, maybe we all wouldn't be so close minded about the subject, and try to be a little more understanding towards it. Now I'm not saying fully accept it depending on who you are and what your beliefs/values are, but at least try to understand a little more.
Stem Cell Research
I particularly believe in doing stem cell research. Why? Because it has a lot of benefits, and has a lot of potential to do a lot of good with treating/curing diseases and can help to treat a lot of diseases/illnesses now, so why not research it more and see what other benefits can come of it.
Some of the pros and cons (including some of the diseases/illnesses) are listed below. (Information obtained from: http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html).
"Pros:
Stem cell research can potentially help treating a range of medical problems. It could lead humanity closer to better treat and possibly cure a number of diseases:
* Parkinson’s Disease
* Alzheimer’s Disease
* Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
* Birth Defects
* Spinal Cord Injuries
* Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
* Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future
* Stem cells may play a major role in cancer
Better treatment of these diseases could also give significant social benefits for individuals and economic gains for the society.
Cons
* "We should not mess with human life."
* "Humans should not be trying to play God"
* Some argue that stem cell research in the far future can lead to knowledge on how to clone humans. It is hard to say whether this is true, but we have seen devastating consequences of other research-programs, even with good intentions, such as nuclear research."
Now just from the list above in the 'pro' section, around eight (8) different illnesses can be helped/treated. Now some people may be worried about the methods used in this process.
Listed below is some of the methods before 2007 (including a disclaimer) is listed below.
"DISCLAIMER:
These points are based on the old debate about the methods of stem cells research, from before 2007. Since then, scientists have moved on to use more ethically methods for stem cell research, such as iPS. This section serves as an illustration of the difficult evaluations researchers may have to analyze.
Pros before 2007
* "The benefits of stem cell research has such a great outcome, that it outweighs the ethical issues." (Cost-benefit-analysis)
* "If someone is going to have an abortion, isn’t it better that we use it for something useful?"
* Adult stem cells would not be that interesting because they do not have the same properties as stem cells from a fetus.
* The research would give great insights about basics of the body.
Cons before 2007
* Critics against stem cell research, argued that the ethical issues of scientific work on aborted fetuses did not justify the possible benefits
* "A life is a life and that should never be compromised. A fertilized egg should be valued as a human life even if it is in its very first weeks. Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."
* We should (and will) develop more ethical methods (such as using adult stem cells) which will enable us to research ethically. We should wait to those methods are available.
* The scientific value has been overstated or has flaws. E.g. we do not know for sure that we can use stem cells to clone organs to be transplanted to oneself."
(Information obtained from http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html).
In my opinion, since we have have a bit of people that are (legally) having abortions in the USA, we can start there and work our way up with using those stem cells. As long as stem cells are gained and used in a humane and safe manor and used for good, I 100% believe that stem cell research should be used to our advantage instead of being fought.
Some of the pros and cons (including some of the diseases/illnesses) are listed below. (Information obtained from: http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html).
"Pros:
Stem cell research can potentially help treating a range of medical problems. It could lead humanity closer to better treat and possibly cure a number of diseases:
* Parkinson’s Disease
* Alzheimer’s Disease
* Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
* Birth Defects
* Spinal Cord Injuries
* Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
* Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future
* Stem cells may play a major role in cancer
Better treatment of these diseases could also give significant social benefits for individuals and economic gains for the society.
Cons
* "We should not mess with human life."
* "Humans should not be trying to play God"
* Some argue that stem cell research in the far future can lead to knowledge on how to clone humans. It is hard to say whether this is true, but we have seen devastating consequences of other research-programs, even with good intentions, such as nuclear research."
Now just from the list above in the 'pro' section, around eight (8) different illnesses can be helped/treated. Now some people may be worried about the methods used in this process.
Listed below is some of the methods before 2007 (including a disclaimer) is listed below.
"DISCLAIMER:
These points are based on the old debate about the methods of stem cells research, from before 2007. Since then, scientists have moved on to use more ethically methods for stem cell research, such as iPS. This section serves as an illustration of the difficult evaluations researchers may have to analyze.
Pros before 2007
* "The benefits of stem cell research has such a great outcome, that it outweighs the ethical issues." (Cost-benefit-analysis)
* "If someone is going to have an abortion, isn’t it better that we use it for something useful?"
* Adult stem cells would not be that interesting because they do not have the same properties as stem cells from a fetus.
* The research would give great insights about basics of the body.
Cons before 2007
* Critics against stem cell research, argued that the ethical issues of scientific work on aborted fetuses did not justify the possible benefits
* "A life is a life and that should never be compromised. A fertilized egg should be valued as a human life even if it is in its very first weeks. Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."
* We should (and will) develop more ethical methods (such as using adult stem cells) which will enable us to research ethically. We should wait to those methods are available.
* The scientific value has been overstated or has flaws. E.g. we do not know for sure that we can use stem cells to clone organs to be transplanted to oneself."
(Information obtained from http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html).
In my opinion, since we have have a bit of people that are (legally) having abortions in the USA, we can start there and work our way up with using those stem cells. As long as stem cells are gained and used in a humane and safe manor and used for good, I 100% believe that stem cell research should be used to our advantage instead of being fought.
6/24/10
Suicide
Suicide is an awful thing that happens. People may have suicidal tenancies, such as, slitting wrists, while others do more extremes, like hanging themselves or overdosing on pills.
Here are some facts/stats for the United States:
"Health care use
* Number of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury: 594,000
Source: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Emergency Department Summary, table 13
Mortality
All suicides
* Number of deaths: 33,300
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.1
* Cause of death rank: 11
Firearm suicides
* Number of deaths: 16,883
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.6
Suffocation suicides
* Number of deaths: 7,491
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.5
Poisoning suicides
* Number of deaths: 6,109
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
(Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2006, tables B, 18)"
(The above stats/facts are a courtesy of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)
I can sit here and post facts and stats, but this topic is a near and dear topic to my heart. I won't disclose any names here out of respect to the families.
But at this time last year, June 17, 2009 to be exact, a close and personal friend of mine hung herself, no one had any clue as to what she was planning. He younger sister, in the 7th grade at the time, found her hanging. There was no note, and no definitive answer to why she chose to do this. We were all devastated upon hearing the news, and we had a memorial service and well over 1,000 people showed up to the memorial service. She was well loved by everyone who knew her. Every time you had come into contact with her you couldn't help but to be smiling.
A few months later, in February or 2010, another close friend of mine killed herself. She overdosed on some pills and passed away. I had seen her a few days earlier and everything seemed fine, but I guess one can be fooled by looks. We had a small memorial service for her as well.
That's why I wanted to bring some attention to this subject. Some may brush the topic off as the person being "selfish," or "cowardly." But whatever you may think, you may never know how much one may truly be suffering and if they're planning to do anything about it, such as suicide. It effects everyone who knew the person, and it stays with you. You truly never know the impact of what your words or actions can do to someone. So I ask all of you who are reading this, please do not take this topic lightly. It is not a light subject, and all I ask is to reach a hand out to one another, because a helping hand, a shoulder to cry on, or even an ear to listen may make a world of difference to those in need.
***NOTE IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW NEEDS HELP (In the U.S.) CALL 1-800-273-8255 ITS THE NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION LIFELINE OR CALL 1-800-784-2433 (ANOTHER PREVENTION LINE), ALL LINES ARE OPEN 24/7, THEY'RE AVAILABLE 365 DAYS OF THE YEAR, AND ALL CALLS ARE TOLL FREE***
Here are some facts/stats for the United States:
"Health care use
* Number of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury: 594,000
Source: National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 Emergency Department Summary, table 13
Mortality
All suicides
* Number of deaths: 33,300
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.1
* Cause of death rank: 11
Firearm suicides
* Number of deaths: 16,883
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.6
Suffocation suicides
* Number of deaths: 7,491
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.5
Poisoning suicides
* Number of deaths: 6,109
* Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.0
(Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2006, tables B, 18)"
(The above stats/facts are a courtesy of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm)
I can sit here and post facts and stats, but this topic is a near and dear topic to my heart. I won't disclose any names here out of respect to the families.
But at this time last year, June 17, 2009 to be exact, a close and personal friend of mine hung herself, no one had any clue as to what she was planning. He younger sister, in the 7th grade at the time, found her hanging. There was no note, and no definitive answer to why she chose to do this. We were all devastated upon hearing the news, and we had a memorial service and well over 1,000 people showed up to the memorial service. She was well loved by everyone who knew her. Every time you had come into contact with her you couldn't help but to be smiling.
A few months later, in February or 2010, another close friend of mine killed herself. She overdosed on some pills and passed away. I had seen her a few days earlier and everything seemed fine, but I guess one can be fooled by looks. We had a small memorial service for her as well.
That's why I wanted to bring some attention to this subject. Some may brush the topic off as the person being "selfish," or "cowardly." But whatever you may think, you may never know how much one may truly be suffering and if they're planning to do anything about it, such as suicide. It effects everyone who knew the person, and it stays with you. You truly never know the impact of what your words or actions can do to someone. So I ask all of you who are reading this, please do not take this topic lightly. It is not a light subject, and all I ask is to reach a hand out to one another, because a helping hand, a shoulder to cry on, or even an ear to listen may make a world of difference to those in need.
***NOTE IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW NEEDS HELP (In the U.S.) CALL 1-800-273-8255 ITS THE NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION LIFELINE OR CALL 1-800-784-2433 (ANOTHER PREVENTION LINE), ALL LINES ARE OPEN 24/7, THEY'RE AVAILABLE 365 DAYS OF THE YEAR, AND ALL CALLS ARE TOLL FREE***
6/23/10
BP oil spill
As of this morning (6/23/10) an article reported that "This morning at approximately 0845 CDT a discharge of liquids was observed from a diverter valve on the drill ship Discoverer Enterprise, which is on station at the MC252 well-site. As a precautionary measure, the lower marine riser package (LMRP) containment cap system, attached to the Discoverer Enterprise, has been moved off the Deep water Horizon’s failed blow-out preventer (BOP) to ensure the safety of operations and allow the unexpected release of liquids to be analyzed. Capture of oil and gas through the LMRP cap is therefore temporarily suspended until such time that the cap can be re-installed. Capture of oil and gas through the BOP’s choke line via a manifold to the Q4000 vessel on the surface continues." (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063083)
If you haven't guessed already that this is talking about the oil spill in the gulf coast of the United States of America. I think it is pathetic that any is spilling, or even the fact that it is STILL spewing into the gulf coast. I firmly believe that British Petroleum, aka BP, went the cheap rout and over looked or just plain neglected safety warnings, updates, repairs, etc. Thus when the problem occurred with the rig causing it to set on fire and killing people, and spewing hundreds upon gallons of oil into the coast.
My heart goes out to all of the families that lost a loved one in the horrible incident with the rig fire.
Though my concerns are as follows:
1)When is this problem going to be "fully fixed?"
2)How are they going to ensure that their "method" of "fixing" this will last?
3)What are the full ramifications for the families, businesses, and the Eco-system (including but not limited to any/all wild life)that will ensue during and after this disaster is dealt with/being dealt with?
4)How many businesses will go under as a result of this spill?
5)Will the gulf ever recover?
6)If so how long, and to what extent?
7) How long will it take for BP to finish paying those affected by this?
8) What steps will BP take to make sure this does NOT happen again?
If you haven't guessed already that this is talking about the oil spill in the gulf coast of the United States of America. I think it is pathetic that any is spilling, or even the fact that it is STILL spewing into the gulf coast. I firmly believe that British Petroleum, aka BP, went the cheap rout and over looked or just plain neglected safety warnings, updates, repairs, etc. Thus when the problem occurred with the rig causing it to set on fire and killing people, and spewing hundreds upon gallons of oil into the coast.
My heart goes out to all of the families that lost a loved one in the horrible incident with the rig fire.
Though my concerns are as follows:
1)When is this problem going to be "fully fixed?"
2)How are they going to ensure that their "method" of "fixing" this will last?
3)What are the full ramifications for the families, businesses, and the Eco-system (including but not limited to any/all wild life)that will ensue during and after this disaster is dealt with/being dealt with?
4)How many businesses will go under as a result of this spill?
5)Will the gulf ever recover?
6)If so how long, and to what extent?
7) How long will it take for BP to finish paying those affected by this?
8) What steps will BP take to make sure this does NOT happen again?
6/22/10
Religion
I'm a Roman Catholic and I love my religion and I love my God. I go to church every Sunday, I have read the bible 4 times in 3 languages. But the one thing I can't stand is religion being pushed onto others. And I absolutely hate religion being used for people's jihad. I may not be all "up to date" on their religion but I know in my religion we don't use that for holy wars or as an excuse for our actions. If we really want to do something its on us not because our religion or our love for our god that "made us" do our actions. I think that its a poor excuse. In my eyes ones religion or one's love for their own God should bring one closer to whatever they believe in, instead of killing others to "be closer" to their God. I think everyone should be peaceful and believe in what they want to believe in as long as they don't kill or hate others. I believe in people compromising and talking things out, instead of using guns, hatred, and violence to get ones point across.
6/21/10
Gay Marrage
Should Gay Marriage be legalized? Of course! I absolutely love the 'heterosexuals' that say that gay marriage is 'an abomination!' Who the hell are they to talk?!?! The heterosexual community gets the option to marry, have children/adopt children, and be open about it in all 50 states. While the gays don't get that option. I wonder what it would be like if the gays were the "majority" and straights were the "minority" and the straights had to fight for their rights to marry and have (or adopt) children while the gays can get married and have (or adopt) children at their own discretion without any judgment. Being a homosexual is NOT contagious! I should know, I am straight and most of my friends are gay/bisexual and I haven't turned into a bisexual or a lesbian. It just wont happen. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're trying to recruit you, I mean if that is what you believe don't be so full of yourself!
In October of 2009 I went to the march for equality in Washington DC to march for equal rights for the GLBT community and it was just so inspiring being there, and marching. You saw all kinds of people there! Cynthia Nixon, the red head from Sex in the City, marched with us. Lady GaGa spoke, as did Cynthia Nixon. As well as some other speakers. There was a solider that marched in his uniform with a piece of electrical tape over his mouth, due to the military's 'don't ask don't tell' policy. I never expected to see that there, but hey! We went past the white house, and right to the capitol building. We only had one protester, ONE! I mean really?!?! I give him credit for trying at least. It was amusing hearing him shout into a megaphone (in his southern accent) that we're sinners, Jesus doesn't love us, and that we're going to hell. Didn't Jesus preach peace and acceptance?! Oh well, lets not talk about religion here, lets save that for a different day.
Did you know that "the only state that will perform a same-sex wedding is Massachusetts. Americans from other states may travel to Massachusetts to get married but they must check their local laws first to make sure that their Massachusetts marriage will be recognized in their state. A Notice of Intent to Marry must be filed in Massachusetts and couples have to wait three days. If you’re an American living in a state where there is a ban on gay marriages, the state of Massachusetts will not issue a marriage license to you. While there are about 19 states that ban gay marriages? those states are: Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and Alabama." (info gotten from http://www.professorshouse.com/family/relationships/gay-marriage-statistics.aspx)
One of the most interesting articles I have found says, " Gay marriage hasn't been legal long enough to establish reliable gay marriage statistics, and many statistics don't separate gay marriage from general marriage rates. Marriage rates have been dropping world wide since 1990. In America, the marriage rate dropped from 232,900 in 2000 to 217,800 in 2004.
Gay marriage, having been illegal for so long, takes a sharp rise wherever it is introduced. When San Francisco legalized gay marriage, 4,037 marriage licenses were issued and 3,995 gay couples were married in the several months before the state intervened and voided the marriages. In a review of the names of couples it was found 57 % of the couples were lesbian. Demographic information also showed most of the couples were older and better educated than average newlywed couples, with more than 74% over 35 years old and 69 % holding a college degree.
For the first six months after gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands, same-sex marriages made up 3.6% of the total number of marriages. The numbers have steadily dropped since then to around 3%, with 2,500 gay couples marrying in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.
In the 2000 census it was found that there were 601,209 committed gay couples in America." (gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/64319/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/index.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)