Forced Pregnacy Tests On Students in China

A college in China is kicking out students who test positive on a required pregnancy test for all new students. Read for yourself.

It's so sad, because as soon as I read that it was China, I thought to myself, "no wonder". Sometimes we just need to remember how lucky we are to live here, in America. Where at least at one time we used to have rights. sigh. I miss the constitution.

Weeds

sometimes we all just need to laugh at ourselves and how we sound

Who the Hell is Chris Dodd?

(white guy on right)

A democratic candidate...I guess. Maybe I'm just being ignorant but I had no idea who the hell he is

Too bad he's just like all the other candidates:

• Voted for the war in Iraq, then against it


• Concerned with Health Care and education


• Reached across to "the other side of the aisle"

For a minute, I thought, damn....mayyyybeeee.....opps. nevermind.

College Suicides

Colleges like UCI, are encountering a growing problem with suicides on campus. Not just UCI, but apparently all across the U.S. suicides have been increasing. But what can the Universities do? Counseling centers are overwhelmed by the amount of work they have treating students. Because, which makes sense, schools can't discriminate based on mental health. So what happens is, the colleges are required by law to allow more unbalanced students to undergo the same amount of pressure.

One fourth of college students go into college already taking some kind of anti-depressant or drug. So now the death rate is increasing. The schools lose either way. The parents sue if the kids aren't let in or if they kill themselves. So now the school's are looking bad because they couldn't do more. But the truth is, they didn't have time with all the other problems from other students. The schools "complain that budget cuts have reduced staffing even as the number of students who need help has increased".

My point is: It's fucking hard to be a student and a kid in today's world


Interesting statistics:

Student health report
(Within the last school year, students reported
these impacted their schoolwork to the extent of lower grades or dropped
classes) :

Stress: 32 percent
Sleep difficulties: 23.9 percent
Concern for a troubled friend or family member: 18 percent
Depression or
anxiety disorder: 15.7 percent
Death of a friend or family member: 8.5
percent
Alcohol use: 7.3 percent
Drug use: 2.3 percent
Eating
disorder: 1.3 percent
Within the last school year, students reported the
following at least once:
Feeling overwhelmed by all they had to do: 93.4
percent
Feeling exhausted: 91.5 percent
Feeling very sad: 80.4 percent
Feeling things were hopeless: 62.2 percent
Feeling so depressed it was
difficult to function: 43.8 percent
Seriously considering suicide: 9.3
percent
Attempted suicide: 1.3 percent
Source: American College Health
Association 2006 Student Health Survey of 94,806 students at 117 schools

Breaking up...not so hard to do

It's easy enough when the GOP creates it's own scandals. They just seem to be getting worse and worse. Killing interns, sexually molesting them, and perhaps worse of all, blatent lies to our nation. You think we'd have it made, right? The GOP just didn't seem to think so. They thought, "hell, why don't we help out the democrats a little more?" And so they did....by leaving their own party.

In recent news, Steve Greenhut leaves the GOP in an articles written in the OCRegister. The articles pretty much explains it all. Why he's leaving and what has changed with the Republican party.

No worries, Greenhut. I think at this point Liberals and Conservatives alike are extremely disapointed and angry at their respective parties. I honestly wouldn't blame you either way. The only difference is, liberals have way mroe heart and loyalty than conservatives ever will ;)

Evidence #2 that this is right: GOP turns on their own. Just as Bush or any other Republican for that matter, Matt Cunningham turns on Greenhut.

New Gun Laws in Virginia Discriminatory or Genius?

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed an executive order that would close the loophole on gun laws in Virginia. But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court's decision was not entered into the database. This will now change according to the democratic Governor, who has always had policies on strict gun control laws.

Now, here is where we come to a crossroads. On one hand, you have conservative rhetoric against this kind of law (but they also happen to think that if EVERYONE was trained and owned a gun, this never would have happened--because a logical person would never attempt something like that in the face of danger--and as we can all see, Seung-Hui Cho was clearly a logical thinker). Don't even get me started on how this is a bad idea. Regardless, they think stricter gun control is not the answer and relaxed gun laws were not the problem. What I find alarming is that Mental Health America feels the same way.

But for a completely different reason.

They see it as discriminatory against mental health patients, which is completely reasonable. So now I find myself in a moral dilemma. They are right. Not to mention that if it really came down to it, if he really wanted to, Cho could have obtained a gun just about anywhere. So stricter gun laws are gonna do jack shit to those that are truly motivated (which are usually the ones that go through with it).

According to the article, Kaine supports the same kind of database for the mentally committed in gun shows as well. Which is nice. Ok, that's a good start. As the article mentioned:

"But it would not prevent Cho from acquiring guns by several other means that require no background check in Virginia, including buy-and-trade publications, individual transactions among gun collectors or hobbyists, and gun shows _ vast firearms bazaars where scores of people sell or swap firearms. Legislation that would also subject firearms sales at gun shows to instant background checks is introduced annually in Virginia, and just as often it dies without reaching a floor vote in the General Assembly"

OK, regardless, I think I still support stricter gun laws. Because let's face it, the right to bear arms is taken just a little bit out of context. And while if everyone had guns, the world would be a safer place (yea, right). If no one had guns it's be the same thing.

Muslim population fights for secularism in Middle East

A large rally was held in Istanbul, Turkey with over 300,000 protesters as CNN reported . Apparently, the people were protesting against a predominant presidential candidate for president who's policies were considerably religious. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul is running for President on a platform of Islam. The country is over 99 percent Muslim and 50 years ago founded the country on a very democratic, secular and progressive constitution. The organization that headed up the protest had this to say:

"The indivisible integrity of secularism and democracy lays the foundations of the Turkish republic, a sacrifice of one for the other is unthinkable. Turkey can healthily emerge from this process by lowering tensions and renewing the will of the nation."

With a reported 70 percent behind the secular government, the people have spoken. What really got to me was what was said by representatives of the protesters about why. Maybe this is CNN's fault, but as the article put it:

"The probability that Gul, whose wife wears the traditional Muslim head scarf, will become the president -- possibly bolstering the role of religion in politics -- has caused unease in the vastly secular nation.'We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace,' said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife, during Sunday's protests, AP reported. 'We want civilized, modern people there.'"

Apparently the Muslims in Turkey don't think very highly of themselves. Or maybe they believe America, in all our glory, is the most "successful" and must therefore follow in our footsteps. They know that a strong government but be run with little religion involved. Now if only America could realize this. *cough cough* Bush administration.

France gets it

Firstly:

The portion of the video that concerns France as a country, is dead on. They get it. End of story. Best health care and benefits....they take care of their own. Honestly, I think some of the reason why our country puts such a negative spin on them is that they are doing everything we get wrong, right. If the U.S. knew the truth (that France is a great place to live and a great strong county), then our country as a whole would look weaker. It all began with Iraq. They didn't go in with us. How dare they, right? wrong. We didn't want to admit this was the right answer. We shouldn't have gone in, and much like every other law and policy, France understood this, and made the CORRECT decree over it. If France was right about Iraq, we can't let Americans know they are right at everything else. Don't get me wrong, France has its problems. Every country does. But we exploit them into a "shitty" country.

Like it matters. They don't care.

Secondly:

Those problems I said France has. Obviously the video is geared toward the fact that the youth of France is upset with the government over laws that would treat workers poorly (compared to what they have, which is a phenomenal labor sector, like I mentioned). What do they do? Riot. and it works. That law did not get passed. And it doesn't stop there. The youth is actively involved in making sure they are not taken advantage of. They do not want to "anonymous commodities". And who can blame them? With the exception of the 2005 ghetto riots, the system works. If a section of people are unhappy. They can get what they want. Unlike here.

What's more patriotic than giving up your rights willingly?

Nothing. Apparently

Just something a little interesting. Funny but true:



There's something about giving up my rights to a government I never supported that stirs me up inside. Yea, let's give up the rights that make this country "so great" so we can be more secure. Because if it's freedom that the terrorists hate us for. Then they've won.

VT Killer's Video

"I don't know of a reputable news organization in this country that, upon receipt of that package, would have ... slipped it in a drawer and not shared its contents. It is beyond disturbing. It is beyond horrifying. It is also news, and news is our role, however unpleasant the stories are at times." -Brian Williams

Except the killer got exactly what he wanted. And NBC gave it to him. He made a video for Christ's sake. And sent it to a news station. Now he is immortilaized. Like he said he would be....just like jesus. I have a problem more with this than people saying now there are going to be "copycat killings". You don't need the video to get the point. This kid was fucked up. The news could have given us all the material anyone would need to do this again. Because that's what the media does in this country: beat a story to death so the only thing you know is what they tell you.

Bullshit. This VT kid would have cited columbine if we HADN'T known about those kids' motives.

What angers me is the blame game. "It was the media's fault that there are more threats to college campuses now because they showed the video". "It was the parents". "It was the gun laws in Virginia". That's not the point. This kid was messed up. He didn't do it because he saw columbine happen and thought "what a great idea". He didn't do it because the gun laws are "weak" in Virginia (how hard is it to get a gun ANYWHERE? It's not, illegally or legally, this kid was on a mission). Same goes for less gun control. People would have died if everyone carried guns on campus. Maybe more, maybe less. Probably more. What's to stop a kid from getting angry at another kid for some stupid college drama?

The point is: NBC shouldn't have shown the video strictly because it was poor judgement. People need to know news, not see it.

New Tactic on Homelessness in America

Portland and several other cities launched an experimental strategy three years ago to put the most troubled of the nation's 750,000 homeless into permanent housing, rather than a shelter, to see if that makes it easier for them to stabilize their lives. Early data suggests it does.

PBS conducted interviews with a few of the winners in a drawing contest for government subsidized housing. However, the focus is on the chronically homeless (those who spend at least a year on the streets or have been homeless more than once in that year). Portland Housing Commissioner Erik Sten made a good point. It's hard to get back onto your feet without a place to call home. Seems obvious enough, and whatever legislation obviously hasn't been working in the past as homelessness in America has become a large problem, especially in more urban areas. The statistics don't lie: Miami's homeless population dropped 30 percent last year with the new approach. In Dallas and San Francisco, 28 percent. And costs?

Doctors at the University of California, San Diego, and the San Diego
Police Department studied 15 chronic homeless and found, in a year and a half,
the government spent an average of $200,000 per person in treatment, law
enforcement, jail and court costs, hospital visits.

PHILIP MANGANO,
Interagency Council on Homelessness: The other finding of the study was, at the
end of that 18 months, those 15 people were in the same condition and same
situation as before. They were still on the same street corners and the same
doorways.

LEE HOCHBERG: The Bush administration's point man on homelessness,
Philip Mangano, says housing these people not only helped stabilize them but
actually costs government less.

Portland found, for example, that even with
the cost of housing 1,000 of its homeless, its overall expenditures on the
homeless dropped by 35 percent as arrests of its homeless fell 47 percent, and
emergency room visits at hospitals declined. Four hospitals actually contributed
$300,000 for housing so their discharged patients have somewhere else to
go.

This is huge. And I'm glad to see that cities are starting to do something for the homeless. Despite the costs, this will do wonders for not only the appearance of the cities, but of attracting people to live there and motivate them to work.

Virginia Tech

What occurred today was truly a tragedy that almost any student in America can truly relate to. We were all struck especially hard when a single shooter walked onto campus and killed 32 students and faculty before taking his own life. Ringing familiar to Columbine, which occurred almost 8 years ago to the day, only had less than half of the fatalities Vtech experienced. My heart, and I'm sure all Americans, goes out to the families and friends of all those that have suffered from the tragic events. One thing though:

Where were the cops? Maybe there's too little information to know right now, but from what I've heard, there was the first shooting at 7:15 am and the second took place 2 hours later. Why were the students even still on campus? The police should have evacuated the campus. I also heard a rumor that the police thought he was off campus. Even more of a reason to get everyone out...if you can. and especially if the shooter hasn't been caught yet. But no. Students received emails while in class about the incident. My sadness goes hand in hand with my anger at the police for not doing more to prevent the other 31 deaths. There was even video taken of gun fire that the police could not confirm if it was their own or not. how competent are these officers!? They also couldn't confirm who had killed the shooter. Whether he killed himself or the police did. Now that just worries me. This situation was handled so completely poorly, those deaths could have been minimized by a lot if the school and city police had taken the situation more seriously.

Rant

I'm a pretty laid back person. It takes a lot to upset me. When it comes to politics, I try to keep an open mind. I can see why someone would argue a certain way. But there are some things I just don't waiver on.

• I will never believe it's OK for women to be held at different standards then men. It's just not right. This is true for salary, physical appearance, intelligence, you name it. the end.

• Abortion. Although very controversial, I stand firm. Don't like 'em, don't get one. I know by now its a weak argument but its a woman's body and her choice. Do I think its always the best option? no. Yes there is adoption but having the baby changes things. Any woman can tell you that. I say its her business and if its a religious thing, let God deal with it. Making abortion illegal will change one thing, and one thing only: more unsafe abortions. Women will have them no matter what, and I think that's something really hard for people to grasp

Oh, and by the way, the great state of Texas just recently, in all their Christian morals and "life has no price" gimmick, just proposed a bill to give a woman $500 dollars to have a baby if she was thinking about having it aborted. nice Texas, real nice. There's so many problems with that I don't know where to start.

First of all, wow, forcing women to be mothers. That's real nice. Because last time I checked 16 year old girls who had sex for the first time by being raped would love (and in no way resent) to have a child. Although it says that after the baby is born, the mother can give it up for adoption, she doesn't have to. Another great point...what do you think this would do for population control, or birth control for that matter?! Women would start getting pregnant (either by purpose or lack of care) and then make a little money off the deal. That's a good support system. Get pregnant and we'll give you $500. That is so messed up.

Well those are the two main things i will never waive on. Although the list turned into a kind of rant on just abortion, it just goes to show how committed I am to the idea

Also, the death penalty. I am one of the few people I know that is against it. Call it the "extreme liberal" inside of me. Sorry but until we can work a few more of the glitches out of the court system i will never be for the murder of innocent people just because they are minorities, etc. More on that latter.

Abstinence Article

According to CNN, a new study on abstinence programs show that teens who are involved in them are just as likely to have sex as those teens who don't. Other similarities included age they began having sex at, and number of partners at beginning of program.

One of President Bush's well-known funded projects is for abstinence to be taught in schools INSTEAD of sex education. $176 million dollars are spent on these programs every year.

What the study emphasized was that abstinence cannot just be taught in high school. It but be re enforced in order to obtain maximum results. However, the report did mention that its goal was to school that the control group, children without the abstinence program, did NOT show an increase in unprotected sexual behavior.

There is so little faith left in the young community. Look at what the conservative right is resorting to in order to stop sex education. It's one thing if its a class to give information to students about sex ( hence sex education), but to block all information flow to a whole generation is not the best option. Kids will do what they want, despite what they are taught in a program (if we have learned anything from high school its this: we don't like what we learned in high school). If this study by congress is true, than abstinence programs are HURTING America, not helping it. Now kids are having sex...but without the proper information to do so. Which is more dangerous?

President Bush is in denial. Anyone for Abstinence ONLY programs before marriage need to realize that choices are made on either side, and it is only when we trust the youth with ALL of the information can they make the right decision.

Liberal

For some ubsurd reason, the term 'liberal' has been connotated negatively within the realm of politics. And while this is undeniably true, its literal opposite, 'conservative' can have the same negative meaning, but for the most part, it can be said that being a conservative is less illogical than being a liberal. This is just not true. It's unfair for liberalism, an idea this country is founded upon, to be frowned upon.

Liberals are weak, timid, slow and politically enept.

The truth of the matter is that liberalism, what liberals base (or try to base) their beliefs on is essestially individualism.

This is what has happened in American Politics. Liberalism, more than conservatism, has slowly departed from its orginal meaning. Just as republican and democratic roles have changed throughout U.S. history, liberalism has slowly been poisoned by those who wish to create a negative image of everything liberal

There Is No Such Thing As Reverse Racism

I would definitely classify myself as a liberal, simply for the reason that my beliefs are most aligned with those of most liberals. However there is one issue I find myself extremely sensitive on.

Racism is one of the worst inventions man has ever created. Just the idea of race was created as a classification system to place one cultural, geographical, and phenotypical group above another. Charles Mills called this the Racial Contract. Where whites make an agreement with each other to put all others into subcategories, therefore creating race(For a quick summary of Mills' work). This is one of the interesting takes on modern race relations. The issue is by no means clear. Racism has existed since race has and cannot therefore be simplified by any one philosopher.

My point is this, people make stupid mistakes. For example, Don Imus was just today suspended for making racial comments about a woman's basketball team. Of course his comments were uncalled for, but for once I find myself siding with something said on FOX news. If the situation were the other way around, it would be funny, or at the very least, ignored. Rarely do you find anyone that is "non-white" make a comment about "whites" and they are suspended. It just doesn't happen. And I can understand why. Ok, I get it, we dominated every other "race" and so this is our price...at the very least...this is what they get in exchange for hundreds of years of enslavement. But the last time I checked, I didn't hurt anyone. And sometimes, yes, I am hurt by comments made about Europeans, etc. Do you see me making a huge deal out of it? No. Because the only way we will EVER be able to erase racism, is if we let the word, and everything else lose meaning. As soon as we make a huge deal over something like this, then racism gets all the power back. If we laugh, if we ignore, if we move on from such obviously stupid and meaningless comments, then we, as people in general, can move on and live together without giving any one such hateful idea any more time than its worth.

And I repeat, I don't want to offend anyone. All I am saying is this: The more time we focus on racism and how horrible it is (which we all already know), the more time racism gets.

And just for the record, racism... is racism, It doesn't matter who said what about whoever. If an Asian-American makes a comment about "whites"...that is racism. ok? No where in the dictionary does it say that it is "whites" saying something about "non-whites". I just wanted to clarify :)