2. April 2009 by Mr. Andoscia.

Last week students in my Social Problems class had the opportunity to talk about…(in hushed tones) sex.  It’s been my experience that just talking about sex is difficult for most.  We are socialized to think that there is something wrong with this topic.  Talking about sex is legitimized by speaking in clinical terms, using cryptic language (substituting the word “adult” for the word “sex” as in Adult Club, or Adult Store), or by joking.  Just having a conversation about sex just…feels wrong.

Consequently, it is my understanding, that some people (myself included) were offended by some of the things said in class.  Some left class, some nursed their ill feelings quietly.  To such people I say, “speak up!”

I’ve always maintained that no one has a right to “not be offended.” What you do have a right to do is give voice to your feelings.  If you are offended by what someone says, say so.  If you sit there quietly, or you walk away then you cannot complain about the direction the discussion has taken. You have a part to play in guiding the discourse.  If you do not fulfill your role you cannot expect any conversation to go your way.

I take great pride in my class that everyone has a right to voice their opinions.  And everyone has a right to challenge the opinions voiced. If such opinions are baseless it doesn’t take long before that is proven; after all, it is a room full of educated people.

The theme of all of my classes is participation in society.  The first step in active social action is speaking.  Do not hold your opinions in confidence.

Posted in Social Problems, Introduction to Sociology | 3 Comments »

2. April 2009 by student.

Its hard sometimes for myself to determine when it is exactly that a “fusion of cells” can or should be considered a human being. Is it at the time of conception? Is it at the moment of brain activity which mind you comes after conception? Is it a state of consciousness that the fetus reaches? Like the comment said about this post; a human being is a being that is aware of itself and the enviornment around them. Does a fetus have this ability be aware of its enviornment (the womb) or itself while still in the whomb; or is it taught this after birth? Is it subconscience within the mind once the brain waves start? I’ve always thought that these are all questions for God! Not things that we can answer because we are not the ones who created the human race; according to your typical Christian befliefs anyway. Without all these questions being answered, how are we supposed to know or even take the liberty of making the assumption that we know that abortion is or isn’t murder? It’s strictly opinion at this point and has been for many years. Think of it this way, it might have you think again about the whole debate? Why, if abortion or the “act” of taking the life of a fetus within  the womb is wrong, then do women have miscarriages? If we want to talk about the spiritual aspects of this phenomenon then my question is “why does God allow this to happen, why does he allow so many other horrible things to happen?”. If the reasoning behind abortion being so horrible and “against religion” is because God and/or whatever your religious beliefs are tell you that it is wrong than why does it still occur. Does this mean that God or whomever are allowing it to happen?

I had a g/f of mine that ended up in a situation such as unplanned pregnancy. She had a choice to make that most would not even dare consider as an option. Taking into consideration her age, goals, and religious beliefs, there were options; thanks to Roe v. Wade. Her goals were to make something out of herself, go into the military, graduate from college, have a very deserving career! Her thought was that none of these things would be able to occur if she were to continue the preganacy, because the stipulation was that “If you get pregnant at a young age there is no way you’ll make anything of yourself, look at those who got pregnant had the baby and went nowhere with their lives!” This type of stipulation came from her parents believe it or not. The warning she got when they found out that she was sexually active was “Be careful, you don’t want to ruin your life!” It’s been many years since her final decision took place in that icy cold clinic. I am still friends with her because she is a wonderful person that just so happen to get caught in an unlikely situation. Her beliefs were like many of those similar to pro-lifers, though she was scared and very young. When in a situation like hers with the factors of age and fear rational decisions are hard to come by she is in a way thankful that she had the “freedom” to make that decision for herself and that the government of her country wasn’t preventing her from taking her own life into her own hands.
She will occasionally bring it up just to vent and I can tell that it’s more than on occasion that she’s really truly thinking and reliving what she’s done. I can see it in her eyes that she feels the pain of her decision everyday. She looked over at me one day while we were on the beach sunbathing and said “you know, if I hadn’t done what I did I bet you I wouldn’t be out here sunbathing and living life at my own age. Could you imagine me having a 4 year old right now to take care of?!?! I wonder if it was a boy or a girl? What would the name have been?” The emotional damage is permanent but such a young innocent little girl isn’t going to realize that until it’s too late, just like the girls that give up their virginity and end up regreting it later, we don’t realize the pain and damage we are all doing to ourselves and to the ones we love around us. They are the ones (like me watching her do what she’s done) that have to sit back, give their two sence when they think they should but witness the mistakes, vulnerability, and pain their loved one places upon themselves.

Posted in Social Problems, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

2. April 2009 by student.

Child porn case at Naples preschool is “parent’s worst nightmare”

By Maggie Crane, WINK News

Story Created: Apr 1, 2009 at 10:41 PM EDT

Story Updated: Apr 1, 2009 at 11:26 PM EDT

NAPLES PARK, Fla. - Parents speak out about developing information in a case of child pornography at a Naples Park preschool.

They want to know how accused child molester Anthony Dinatale was allowed inside Ann Phillip Preschool with a criminal history. Detectives digging into Dinatale’s past now say they’re could be even more sex-related charges on the way, which are unrelated to what allegedly happened at the school.

“It’s a parent’s worst nightmare,” Ted Zelman, attorney, says.

An alleged criminal stopped by a 5-year-old — so says the victim’s attorney, after the little girl told teachers a man photographed her going to the bathroom and that he touched her. No one at the school called police. The victim’s parents did.

“Any responsible person would have contacted the proper authorities immediately,” JT Burnside, parent of preschooler, says.

Instead, detectives say the school’s owner called her stepson — the man now in jail, charged with crimes against kids. Dinatale’s own child attends the school, but parents say they went through background checks to be able to get inside. Dinatale has a previous record for burglary.

“Outrage is a good descriptive word (for how I felt),” Burnside says. “It’s upsetting that it can happen to anyone.”

Fearing for his own daughter’s safety, Burnside pulled his 3-year-old out of Ann Phillip Preschool.

“The parents are angry and frustrated,” Zelman says of the victim’s family. “They feel guilty they were the ones who put her in that school.”

But other parents — off camera — say the owner is also a victim.

“It’s about a 50/50 split between finger-pointing, laying blame and siding with (owner Kathy Dinatale),” Burnside says.

“These two families are the victims here — not anyone else,” Zelman says.

The school has been closed since Friday and will not reopen until DCF retrains its staff and makes sure the school is complying with the law.

The school’s owner will only say she is cooperating with authorities.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

2. April 2009 by student.

Michael J. Fox’s Personal Battle

For more than 25 years, Michael J. Fox has been making America laugh. This Canadian-born actor made a name for himself in the early ’80s as Alex P. Keaton, a conservative teen with hippie parents, on the hit show Family Ties. Then, he blasted into theaters as the star of blockbuster movies like Back to the Future.

In 1991, at the height of his career, Michael’s life took an unexpected turn. He was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a chronic neurological disorder that can cause debilitating tremors.

At first, Michael kept his diagnosis private. He went on to produce and star in the comedic series Spin City. Then, as his symptoms worsened and became harder to disguise, Michael went public with his battle.

In 1998, Michael spoke out about his disease and the need for increased Parkinson’s research. Since then, this father of four has become the voice for millions of chronically ill Americans and a vocal proponent of stem cell research.

Dr. Oz says people suffering from this disease can sometimes manage their uncontrollable tremors with medication…but not always.

“How much medication did you have to take in preparation for today?” Oprah asks.

“A boatload,” Michael says.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2. April 2009 by student.

If you average it out, that’s nearly one visit a day for each of the 9 patients at an Austin, Texas E.R.. According to the Associated Press article I read, eight of the nine patients have drug abuse problems, seven were diagnosed with mental health issues, and three were homeless.  After reading that last sentence, some may say ……”there’s your problem”……..”it’s those damn drug addicts, homeless, and psych’s” ……… but in reality the drug addicts, homeless, and psych’s are just a symptom of an even larger underlying problem.

It’s important to note. this is not some rare coincidence. This is the norm in many major cities. This issue (like many medical problems) has a root cause along with symptoms. We can’t blame the homeless, the drug addicts, or the mentally ill because they are the symptom. We can bitch and complain about them all we want and they won’t go away. Think about this….you have strep throat…. you can take all the cough drops and sprays on earth but until you get some anti-biotics that strep is there to stay and it’s gonna kill you eventually.

Our E.R.’s are overloaded with illegitimate patients because the E.R. is free, and the law says we must treat anyone who requests treatment. Unfortunately the E.R. is often taken advantage by those that need something besides legitimate medical treatment. The true cause of all this is related to the failure of the system that feeds the homeless, treats the mentally ill and rehabilitates drug users.

Many of these people are using the E.R. (which is very expensive) to treat something that does not require an E.R.. Think about it, when a homeless person needs a place to stay on a cold night and they can’t get into a shelter they call 911. If they want a sandwich and they can’t get one they can call 911.  An average E .R. visit is $1000 dollars and the tax payers are footing the bill for that $1000 dollar sandwich. 

For the price we (the tax payers) pay in E.R. bills, we could put these 9 people up in a hotel every night, feed them room service for breakfast lunch and dinner, and give them some spending cash. Go ahead do the math. That’s arround $200 for each of them every day. There is a real problem here!!!!!!!! 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

2. April 2009 by student.

I believe that animal cruelty is one social problem that is often overlooked and sometimes goes unseen.  Apart from the whole Michael Vick scenario cruelty towards animals does not raise that many eyebrows.  The truth of the matter is that thousands of cases of animal cruelty appear every year and this is a serious problem that needs to be taken care of.

When I talk about animal cruelty I do not mean hunting, fishing, or butchering cattle for meat, but rather something of the nature of torturing household pets and malicious cruelty of all of God’s creatures.  Last year there were over 1,600 cases of cruelty towards towards pets for the U.S. alone, which include neglect, fighting, shooting, beating, hoarding, mutilation, stabbing, kicking, poisoning, choking, beastiality, throwing, and burning.  The reason that this is such a major problem is that these acts are not only harmful towards the animals but also to the human being commiting these acts.  Many studies show that criminals who perform violent acts oftentimes are linked to having a childhood in which they were cruel to animals.  One survey showed that a series of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured animals had a very high level of aggression towards people as well.  Also, a police study in Australia showed that every offender that had commited a sexual homicide had a history of being cruel to animals.  

Many of the most notorious killers of our time were said to have been abusive towards animals before they began to murder people.  Albert DeSalvo, also known as the “Boston Strangler”, was known to have trapped dogs and cats in boxes and shoot arrows through them in his youth, Jeffrey Dohmer was said to have stuck sticks through the heads of dogs, cats, and frogs, Dennis Rader wrote about hanging dogs and cats, and Lee Boyd Malvo was said to have shot and killed many cats with marbles out of a slingshot before he killed ten people with a rifle.  Almost all recent cases in which schools have been terrorized by shootings by students have been linked to animal cruelty.  Kip Kinkel and Luke Woodham tortured animals before shooting out their highschool in Oregon, and the Columbine High School shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had spoken of mutilating animals in the past.

It can be seen that animal cruelty is a terrible offense that can lead to major psychological disfunction and can have serious effects on the lives of anyone.  This is a major issue and serious action must take place in order to stop this from happening.  I believe that stricter laws must be put in play for those who are found being cruel to animals.  Kids and young adults who are seen torturing animals must be required to immediately receive a psychological examination and psychological help to keep their aggression from spreading.  I hope in the future that this crime is taken very seriously and that this social problem can be resolved.

references- http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=132, http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/yearly_animal_abuse_report.php?state=&year=2008&search=go

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

2. April 2009 by student.

As of November 17, 2008 there are approximately 100,000 candidates on the organ donor transplant list  and every year there are 20,000 operations.  Only 3 out of 10 individuals are organ donors. (organdonor.gov)  Only 35 percent of licensed drivers and ID holders are organ donors, leaving organ donation a health crisis. (dontatelife.net)  This is obviously a very small ratio.  Organ transplants are a lengthy process for not only the recipient but also the donor.  If compensation was available to the donor this miniscule ratio would increase.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a non-profit organization 

that manages the distribution of organ transplants. This organization basically makes sure that donated organs are fairly distributed to patients in need of a transplant. The organization administers the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) which was originally established by the U.S. Congress in 1984. The organization for the most part works on making organ transplant available and supports the community by educating our society and providing technology. (UNOS.org)

The UNOS operates through a computerized network which links them to all the 

transplant centers and procurement organizations. The organ recipients have access to the network twenty four hours a day and seven days a week. After a 

recipient is referred by a doctor, the patient is evaluated by the designated transplant center. The transplant center performs several tests to determine the patient’s mental and physical health, which will determine whether the patient is healthy enough to go through such a major surgery. In addition, the recipient’s social support system is considered.  The donor goes through similar tests to determine whether or not they are able to donate, these tests also determine who  on the list receives the organ, the better match to the donor is the recipient.  These test may take time away from the donors work and money away from pay. (UNOS.org)

If the center finds the patient to be an acceptable candidate for a transplant, the patient’s medical profile is added to the organ transplant waiting list. At first the 

patient is not being added to a ranked list in order of procedure urgency and convenience, instead he/she is added to a pool of “waiting patients.”  When a donor becomes available, a transplant coordinator searches the UNOS computer to find a patient who matches specific characteristics of the donor. The computer generates the ranked list according to organ distribution policies. Some of the factors that are determinant of the ranking process are: blood type, tissue match, how far the recipient and the donor live, and their duration on the waiting list. For heart, liver, and intestines, the severity of the patient’s condition is considered. The first individual on the list receives the offer by the transplant team. There is a likelihood that the first person on the list will not get the transplant because once notified the recipient has to be ready for surgery right away 

and needs to haven a healthy status in order to undergo surgery.  (UNOS.org)  During this time the donor is also stressfully waiting to hear whether or not their organ is needed for transplantation. The average national waiting time for a heart is 230 days, a lung is 1,068 days, a liver is 796 days, a kidney is 1,121 days, and a pancreas is 501 days (organdonor.gov). 

Websites like MatchingDonors.com have successfully matched organ donors to 

recipients; leading experts to think at some point in time it will undermine the UNOS system. There are several ethical issues linked to the solicitation of organs over the internet. Since the shortage of organ donors is a problem, recipients’ families’ and friends have decided to take a different route than that of the UNOS organization to receive a transplant. One of the reasons why matching sites are chosen over UNOS is because the donations are not anonymous; donors are more willing to donate when they get to know the person who’s going to receive their organ. Recipients use personal stories 

and cute pictures to motivate donors into giving up their organs. Matchingdonors.com allows people the opportunity to search for living donors which is the contrary to the deceased donor policy of UNOS.  If donors are compensated and the donor ratio increases this website will become even more popular making it much easier for donors to find patients in need of a transplant.

Compensation for individuals donating an organ while still living shouldn’t even be a question.  These selfless individuals are taking a huge risk as well as an extended leave from work.  This doesn’t include the costs or time taken off from work for the preliminary visits before undergoing surgery.  Donating an organ without a doubt takes time and money from the donor.  A compensation for these individuals would only be the fair way to go about this issue.  If and organ being donated is the result of the unexpected death of an individual the family of that individual should also be compensated.  Only 3 out of 10 individuals are organ donors.  If some sort of compensation was put on being an organ donor this small ratio would increase.  The average cost of an organ is $142,800, this does not include and medication given or the operation expenses (surgeons), after all other costs are factored in the total operation is easily over a million dollars (http://www.chfpatients.com/tx/transplant.htm).  With that being said, compensation for organ donors and their families is justified.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »