King Of Pain's Blurty Entries [entries|friends|calendar] King Of Pain [ userinfo | blurty userinfo ] [ calendar | blurty calendar ]

[15 Nov 2006|03:51pm] Smoking in Public Places is harmful for both the smoker, and the people around them. Smoking has recently had a ban put on it in Columbia, Missouri. Therefore, my proposal is; in order to have a healthier environment, smoking in public places should be eliminated. Smoking cigarettes is not just harmful to people who smoke them, but also harmful for anyone who is around them. Breathing in smoke from other people’s cigarettes is considered as a major health risk all over the world, and causes more deaths every year than many major diseases. More than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. each year are from smoking-related illnesses (Facts About Smoking). The problem with smoking is that people who smoke are considered to be a danger to society because their smoking causes harm to others, even if they are not aware. There is evidence that has been proven that smoking harms both those who smoke and those who are exposed to second hand smoke. Today, smokers are everywhere. Do you remember the last time you went out and didn’t see a smoker nearby? The overall fact is that smoking is not healthy. Secondhand smoke is when smoke from a burning end of a cigarette, cigar or pipe is inhaled by non-smokers. Non-smokers who inhale second hand smoke are at risk of eye, nose, and throat irritation along with headaches, lung cancer, and it’s possible that the smoke may contribute to heart disease. Those children who are exposed to second hand smoke have an increased risk of getting bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, build-up of fluid in the middle ear, asthma symptoms, and a decrease in the lungs functioning correctly. Also smoke makes some people dizzy or light headed, and sick to their stomachs. My proposal is that I believe smoking should be banned from public places in all of Missouri. Here in Columbia, there is a smoking ban that has been passed on October 10, 2006. The ban said that as of January 9, 2007, smoking will be banned in all bars, restaurants, and many other public places. Business owners and their patrons will have 90 days to adjust (Smoking ban passes). In fact, The Blue Note, a local concert venue, has already taken this new ban into effect. After being a venue that allows smoking for 25 years, it is becoming a smoke-free environment. When I go to concerts there, I usually come home smelling like a chimney, but when I went there on Saturday, November 11, I came back home smelling the same way as I had left, smoke-free. Smoking is a dangerous habit that not only affects the smoker, but those around him or her. Banning smoking in public places will keep non-smokers safe. Is there a reason why they should be forced around second hand smoke? Furthermore, there are many states that have already banned smoking in public places. Now, all we need to do is convince each states government that hasn’t banned smoking in their state to do so. The reason why, is because smoking is dangerous to anyone who comes in contact whether it’s voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, by banning smoking in public places, health risks relating to smoke will decrease for those who choose not to smoke and will be exposed to clean air when indoor at a public place. To justify this situation, why should innocent people have to suffer through any serious side effects and uncomfortable circumstances that have to deal with second hand smoke? This is a free country where people can do what they want in out country regulations. People get upset when their rights are taken away. So, should nonsmokers have the right to enjoy clean air as much as smokers have the right to smoke? There should be laws to ban smoking in public places everywhere. These innocent people need to be protected. Those who are exposed to second hand smoke are breathing in about 599 known ingredients and chemicals such as ammonia, caffeine, terpinolene, and countless other ingredients that are obviously bad for you. (Martin) The tobacco industry has gone as far as trying to convince public places that they should use good ventilation systems to make the workplace healthier for everyone. But healthier for who? The tobacco company’s only concern is to sell their product which they make billions of dollars off of every year. But the fact is, ventilation systems cannot remove all toxins and cancer causing chemicals from the air. Only smoke-free places protect people from the health dangers of secondhand smoke. Tobacco company’s make these myths about ventilation systems to keep the money flowing not from the clean air, but into their pockets. They know if people can’t smoke or work in a public place that will mean that is less money spent on cigarettes. In the satire, “Thank You For Smoking”, a lobbyist tries to do everything in his power to try and keep people from not smoking. It’s a fresh perspective on how it is on the end of the people trying to promote cigarette use. He even goes as far as to use reverse psychology into getting people to keep smoking. Just because tobacco companies pay for anti-smoking ads, it doesn’t mean they don’t want you to smoke, they do it so it looks better on their part. In conclusion, studies have been shown that smoking and secondhand smoke will harm the health of people can cause death to those exposed to it. To permit smoking in public places may help people stay away from smoking. There may be people who will say they will lose business if this law is passed in their city or state. A ban could actually increase people going out because non smoking would be more comfortable. Also with the states taking a stand, it may cause people to take another look at the deadly factors of cancer sticks, also known as cigarettes. I believe that banning smoking in public places will benefit everyone. Nonsmokers will benefit because they are not exposed to unwanted smoke from other peoples cigarettes. Nonsmokers will be able to go in public places and not have the smell of tobacco stench on their clothes. In my experience when I go to a concert, I always come out smelling as if I were smoking all night. But in reality, I’m not a smoker so therefore, I don’t desire the smells of cigarettes like some people do. I also believe that those who do smoke will respect those who wish to stay away from cigarettes smokes and other tobacco related products. This law may even help smokers reduce the amount of cigarettes they smoke every day by not allowing it in public places. Therefore, to ban smoking in public places can be beneficial to anyone. Works Cited Martin, Terry. "What's in a cigarette?." About.com. 06 Dec, 2004. About.com. 15 Nov 2006 . "Smoking ban passes." Columbia Missourian. 10, Oct, 2006. Columbia Missourian. 15 Nov 2006 . "Smoking facts and tips for quitting." Facts About Smoking. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH. 15 Nov 2006 . post comment

[13 Nov 2006|05:00pm] Smoking cigarettes is not just harmful to people who smoke them, but also harmful for anyone who is around them. Breathing in smoke from other people’s cigarettes is considered as a major health risk all over the world, and causes more deaths every year than many major diseases. Children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are estimated to be about 1.4 times more likely to suffer from asthma symptoms than children who are not exposed. The problem is that people who smoke are considered to be a danger to society because their smoking causes harm to others, even if they are not aware. There is evidence that has been proven that smoking harms both those who smoke and those who are exposed to second hand smoke. Today smokers are everywhere. Do you remember the last time you went out and did not see a smoker nearby? Therefore the overall fact is that smoking is not healthy. Secondhand smoke is when smoke from a burning end of a cigarette, cigar or pipe is inhaled by non-smokers. Non-smokers who inhale second hand smoke are at risk of eye, nose, and throat irritation along with headaches, lung cancer, and it’s possible that the smoke may contribute to heart disease. Those children who are exposed to second hand smoke have an increased risk of getting bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, build-up of fluid in the middle ear, asthma symptoms, and a decrease in the lungs functioning correctly. Also smoke makes some people dizzy or light headed, and sick to their stomachs. My proposal is that I believe smoking should be banned from public places in Columbia, Missouri. Smoking is a dangerous habit that not only affects the smoker, but those around him or her. Banning smoking in public places will keep non-smokers safe. Is there a reason why they should be forced around second hand smoke? Furthermore, there are many states that have already banned smoking in public places. Now, all we need to do is convince each states government that hasn’t banned smoking in their state to do so. The reason why, is because smoking is dangerous to anyone who comes in contact whether it’s voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, by banning smoking in public places, health risks relating to smoke will decrease for those who choose not to smoke and will be exposed to clean air when indoor at a public place. To justify this situation, why should innocent people have to suffer through any serious side effects and uncomfortable circumstances that have to deal with second hand smoke? This is a free country where people can do what they want in out country regulations. People get upset when their rights are taken away. So, should nonsmokers have the right to enjoy clean air as much as smokers have the right to smoke? There should be laws to ban smoking in public places everywhere. These innocent people need to be protected. Those who are exposed to second hand smoke are breathing in about 4000 chemicals that contain arsenic, cyanide, carbon monoxide, methane, and sixty-three other chemicals which cause cancer. The tobacco industry has gone as far as trying to convince public places that they should use good ventilation systems to make the workplace healthier for everyone. But healthier for who? The tobacco company’s only concern is to sell their product which they make billions of dollars off of every year. But the fact is, ventilation systems cannot remove all toxins and cancer causing chemicals from the air. Only smoke free places protect people from the health dangers of secondhand smoke. Tobacco company’s make these myths about ventilation systems to keep the money flowing not from the clean air, but into their pockets. They know if people can’t smoke or work in a public place that will mean that is less money spent on cigarettes. In conclusion, studies have been shown that smoking and secondhand smoke will harm the health of people can cause death to those exposed to it. To permit smoking in public places may help people stay away from smoking. There may be people who will say they will lose business if this law is passed in their city or state. A ban could actually increase people going out because non smoking would be more comfortable. Also with the states taking a stand, it may cause people to take another look at the deadly factors of cancer sticks, also known as cigarettes. I believe that banning smoking in public places will benefit everyone. Nonsmokers will benefit because they are not exposed to unwanted smoke from other peoples cigarettes. Nonsmokers will be able to go in public places and not have the smell of tobacco stench on their clothes. In my experience when I go to a concert, I always come out smelling as if I were smoking all night. But in reality, I’m not a smoker so therefore, I don’t desire the smells of cigarettes like some people do. I also believe that those who do smoke will respect those who wish to stay away from cigarettes smokes and other tobacco related products. This law may even help smokers reduce the amount of cigarettes they smoke every day by not allowing it in public places. Therefore, to ban smoking in public places can be beneficial to anyone. If you’re smoking at a public place, and you throw a cigarette butt on the ground, you could possibly get in trouble for leaving. Also, if you don’t smoke, and you leave a public place that allows smoking, there is always a possibility that you could be stereotyped as being a smoker. With the recent issue of smoking within Columbia itself, such as the recent election where voters had to vote on raising the tax of cigarettes by 470%, or the fact that as of January 9, 2006, smoking will no longer be allowed in public places in Columbia. The Blue Note, a local concert venue which has been a place to smoke for avid concert goers for years, has already enforced this law as becoming a smoke-free venue, and it’s still November! In Omaha, Nebraska, if you even see someone smoking, whether it is indoors or outside, you are supposed to call 911 and report the person. The movie “Thank You For Smoking” even depicts the main character, who is a cigarette lobbyist, to convince people that smoking is not as bad for you as it sounds. post comment

[08 Nov 2006|03:16pm] Anthony Lutz Robertson Paper #5 11/10/06 Dear Editor, Whether it is for jobs, housing, or protection of the law, about anyone can say homosexuals should be allowed to have basic human rights. However, when it comes to gay marriage, that’s when the view on how they should have the same equal rights as heterosexuals stop. This same issue could be taken back to when African Americans wanted to have the same rights that everyone else in America did at the time, and that was the right to vote. Both groups have people have had to struggle for their rights, and as we know, homosexuals are still fighting for their rights when it comes to gay marriage. In both instances, one of the main reasons that these groups of people don’t have the same rights is because people “just aren’t comfortable with the idea”. Discomfort with an idea is not reasonable enough for not allowing it. Half a century ago, it was unthinkable for blacks to go to the same schools as whites, drink out of the same water fountains, sit in the front of the bus, or eat at the same restaurants. All of this happened because southern whites were not comfortable with it. This was simply pure racism. It’s not like blacks did anything to hurt us, they couldn’t help who they were. This issue is still the same with gay marriage. With all of this being said, I think that if you look back at how we’ve grown to accept African Americans over the last fifty years, the same could easily be done with gay marriage. After all, it’s not like they’re really hurting anybody, are they? post comment

[08 Nov 2006|12:39pm] Dear Editor, In our society, about anyone is in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Whether it be jobs, housing, or protection of the law, about anyone can say homosexuals should be allowed to have those rights. However, when it comes to gay marriage, that’s when the view on how they should have the same equal rights as heterosexuals do stop. This same issue could be taken back to when African Americans wanted to have the same rights that everyone else in America did at the time, and that was the right to vote. Both groups have people have had to struggle for their rights, and as we know, homosexuals are still fighting for their rights when it comes to gay marriage. In both instances, one of the main reasons that these groups of people don’t have the same rights is because people “just aren’t comfortable with the idea”. Discomfort with an idea is not reasonable enough for not allowing it. Half a century ago, it was unthinkable for blacks to go to the same schools as whites, drink out of the same water fountains, sit in the front of the bus, or eat at the same restaurants. All of this happened because southern whites were not comfortable with it. This was simply pure racism. It’s not like blacks did anything to hurt us, they couldn’t help who they were. This is still the same with gay marriage. One could argue that this issue is different. What homosexuals are doing is wrong, marriage is meant to be sacred, allowing two homosexuals to marry breaks what was once a sacred bond between a man and a woman. As I see this, heterosexuals are doing more wrong when it comes to “how sacred” marriage is meant to be. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm post comment

[20 Oct 2006|12:10pm] Anthony Lutz Robertson Paper #4 10/20/06 Spanking As A Form Of Discipline Is spanking really the best way to punish a child? In my opinion, I don’t think it is, I think there are better forms of punishment. I believe that spanking demonstrates that it is okay for an adult to hit a child, a stronger person hitting a weaker person. I don’t think spanking a child teaches them the difference between right and wrong. I think it makes children afraid to disobey their parents when they are present, but when parents are not around to punish, the child will misbehave. As a result, I don’t think spanking is an effective form of discipline. There are better ways to teach a child. Children learn as they grow, and sometimes they do forget things. As a parent, you don’t follow all the rules all the time, or do you? Kids will screw up every once in a while just like you do. Talking gets better results than hitting a child will. If you talk to your kids, they might be more understanding of where you are coming from. Instead of violence, kids need guidance. Spanking makes children feel worse about themselves. It can give confusing messages, especially to a child who is too young to even understand why they are being spanked. Spanking also makes the relationship of a parent to a child more distant. Being a parent means you are trusted and respected, not feared. If a parent uses spanking as punishment, the child may lose respect for the parent over a long period of time. Therefore, the parent will need to learn different ways to discipline without spanking. Spanking can increase anger in the child and the adult. When a child is humiliated, they either hold it in or rebel. Basically, spanking may make the child afraid to repeat their mistakes, but it is more likely to make the child fear the person spanking them. Children whose behavior is controlled by spanking throughout their youth may appear okay on the outside, but hurt on the inside. After a while, many children that are spanked find it hard to trust others. However, parents who examine their feelings after spanking, realize that all they have accomplished is releasing their anger on the child. Spanking can be addicting in the fact that it releases anger, which can sort of be an ongoing cycle of a wrong form of punishment. Spanking can bring back bad memories. A child’s memories of being spanked can cover up very happy times of when they were growing up. Many people usually remember more traumatic events over the pleasant ones. There are people who remember growing up in a loving home, but they might remember being spanked which isn’t a pleasant memory at all. I think a parent’s goal should be to leave a child remembering as many happy events in their life as possible. Not all children who experience spanking turn out to be aggressive, but the more often a child is hit, the more likely they’ll have aggressive behavior. Why isn’t spanking treated like spousal abuse? This is just as bad of abuse, only it is one adult doing it to another. If a couple is having problems in the relationship, and her partner hit her because he was upset with something she did, most people would tell her to get out of the house, he shouldn’t be hitting you. Others may tell her that someone who’s hit before will not change, and the abuse will get worse. So what is the difference in spanking a child, and a man hitting his wife? In a sense, they are both trying to teach discipline. Or they could spank or hit because they were in “a rage”. This scenario does seem realistic, the husband loses control and hits the wife, or the mother loses control and spanks the child. To deliberately hurt someone is a serious issue. However, can spanking make children more violent to other kids? It’s simply saying it’s okay to hurt someone who is smaller or weaker than you. I have often heard people say that they were spanked as a kid, and they turned out okay. If you think about it, the painful memories that were there have faded. Discipline can help children learn to develop self control. Discipline is setting limits and fixing any wrongdoings. Discipline encourages children by guiding them, and helping them to feel good about themselves and teaching them how to think for themselves. Even though spanking is used to directly control a child’s behavior, it does not teach them how to change what they do. Discipline should help children learn how to control their own behavior, not teach bad behavior. Also, spanking can teach children to be afraid of the adults in charge. Good discipline teaches children to respect the adult in charge. With good discipline, children will learn to control their own behavior even when you’re not around to watch them. Children do not need to be hit in order to learn how to behave. Instead of spanking your children, you can help them learn self control, but at the same time, you can help them feel good about themselves. In addition, you can show them how a person with self control acts. You can guide them and set limits to correct misbehaving or by talking to them. But most important, as parents, you should teach your children how to think. After all, discipline is how adults teach children to grow to be happy, safe, well adjusted members of society. In conclusion, children need to be taught discipline because they are not born with it. As children grow, parents have to teach it to them. Altogether, teaching children discipline takes lots of time and practice, but hopefully they’ll learn how to control their own behavior. Also, teaching discipline does not have to hurt the parent or the child. However, raising children can be touch, but as children learn to control their own behavior, discipline becomes easier. Therefore, children will eventually become responsible for their own actions. post comment

[13 Oct 2006|12:44pm] Anthony Lutz Robertson Paper #3 10/13/06 Postpartum Depression One of the happiest and most important times in a person’s life is having a newborn baby. However, with many of today’s mothers, they are feeling quite the opposite of being happy. Their feelings are becoming so overwhelmed, that they are becoming depressed, and having trouble dealing with their feelings towards their newborn. In fact, 80% of women feel some sort of mood disturbance after having a baby. For most women, the symptoms are mild and go away on their own. But 10-20% of women develop a more disabling form of mood disorder called postpartum depression (Postpartum Depression). Some cases of postpartum depression can be mild, where the woman just may have trouble sleeping, or she might be more emotional. Other cases of postpartum depression can be extremely severe. Take Andrea Yates for example. Andrea was considered to many to be a pretty typical housewife and mother. She had five kids who ranged from seven years old to six months old. She did have a few problems, but as of today, who doesn’t? Her actions shocked the media because of how far she went with her case of the “baby blues”. On the morning of June 20, 2001, Andrea’s husband, Rusty, left home for work, leaving Andrea home alone to tend to their children. Not long after he went to work, Andrea filled up their bathtub, drowned all five of her kids, placed them on her bed, and covered them with a sheet. Immediately after, she called her husband and 911, then told them what she had done. During Andrea’s confession, she explained her actions by saying that she wasn’t a good mother, and that the children were “not developing correctly” and she needed to be punished (Montaldo). Charles Krauthammer wrote an article “Andrea Yates Wasn’t Responsible For Her Crime” and he feels that Andrea wasn’t responsible for her crime. To be considered guilty, you have to have free will. Because of Andrea’s postpartum depression, her free will was considered null and void. Only two weeks before the murders, Andrea was taken off an anti-psychotic medication called Haldol. Since she had been so used to this medication, and may have depended on it, how is one to say that it was her fault since she didn’t truly know what she was doing? Previous to this incident, Andrea tried to commit suicide twice. Shortly after the suicide attempts, she said, “I had a fear I would hurt somebody. I thought it would be better to end my own life and prevent it.” So she obviously acknowledged the fact that she needed help, and she tried to end her own life because she was afraid of what the future held. Andrea felt that when she drowned her five children, she was doing the right thing. In her psychosis, she thought that she was ‘saving’ her children. In this instance, trying to figure out how harsh of a punishment would be pointless, it would be like punishing someone for eating an apple; she didn’t think she was doing anything wrong. But the fact is, it wasn’t an apple, they were lives that she took. What she did is considered very wrong in our society, in fact, it is the worst thing a human being can do to another. Even if she was psychotic, she did the action, now she should take the responsibility, insane or not. Michelle Cottle wrote an article titled “Punishment That Fits” that goes more in depth on this side of the argument. She believes that Andrea should be put in either prison for life, or receive the death penalty. In many of today’s cases, too many people are throwing out that they are the victim in crimes that they have committed. In Andrea’s case, she considers herself the victim of postpartum depression. That may be the case, but it doesn’t justify for she did. In my opinion, I think that you can only use something for what you did to a certain extent, but up to a point, it no longer becomes relevant. The actions are what matter, and if you can’t control yourself because of an illness, then you aren’t fit to live in our society. If Andrea knew what was the cause of her postpartum depression (having kids) then why did she continue to have them? It wasn’t like she had one or two, but she had five! If she was feeling worse and worse after every pregnancy, then why did she ad fuel to the fire? If she really wanted to help fix her problem, then getting help with the kids she had already would have been the first step, not bringing more into this world. Andrea was also known for contemplating the murders for months, not acting on them. If she really lost grip on reality on that morning, why would she have contemplated it for months? She obviously knew what she was doing on the day of the murders. She waited until her husband went to work, then she killed her kids. She didn’t tell anyone she was feeling that way, she just acted on how she felt. We know she could have gotten help too, because she called 911 immediately after she acted on killing her five kids. Charles Krauthammer, who believed that it wasn’t her fault, might be a more understanding of a person. He probably believes that everyone deserves a second chance, and that anyone who is truly sorry can change. He might be the type of person that believes everyone has a reason for the things they do. Michelle Cottle on the other hand, probably put herself in Andrea’s husbands shoes. I mean if I had kids, and my significant other killed them while I was away, I’m pretty sure I’d want them to be punished in the harshest way. This author is probably one that also favors the death penalty, and they probably believe you only get one chance with some things, in this case, murder. In my opinion, I think that what she did could not have been blamed on an illness. I think that if she really wanted to blame it on postpartum depression, then she should be committed to a hospital for the rest of her life. And with that, I think that she should be sterilized, since the whole reason her crimes happened was from having kids in the first place. If she has any reason as to why she shouldn’t be sterilized, the argument isn’t even there, she took the lives of her five kids, so she shouldn’t be allowed to have anymore since she blew her one and only chance. On July 26, 2006, Andrea was found not guilty by reason of insanity, by the state of Texas. She will be committed to a state hospital (Andrea Yates). I find this verdict to be a good one, because since she pleaded by reason of insanity, she will be sent to a mental hospital. The only thing I fear when hearing this verdict is the fact that in future cases, people will use this as a reason as to why they aren’t guilty, and won’t have to go to jail for their actions. But since postpartum depression is being more recognized now, hopefully there will be better ways for new mothers to deal with their “baby blues”. post comment

[29 Sep 2006|02:43pm] Anthony Lutz Mrs. Robertson 9/29/06 Paper # 2 Are You Really Living If You’re On Life Support? The very controversial Terri Schiavo case left many split right in the middle of how they would have dealt with the situation had they been her family, or even Terri herself. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and she had been that way for fifteen years. When this case was at it’s height in March of 2005, I was nineteen. To put that into perspective, I would have been in a vegetative state for three-fourths of my life. Now that’s a long time! Her parents felt that she could recover, and they wanted the feeding tube that kept her alive to be left in so she could survive and hopefully recover. But to me, if you were in a state like that for so long, even if you did recover, you would never be anywhere close to who you had been before you were in a vegetative state. If I were ever in her place, I would rather be dead, than miserable. I know that we don’t know whether she was miserable or not, but I think I can put it in a better way of how I would feel if was in the situation. If I couldn’t walk, talk, eat on my own, or respond to anything in any way, then I would rather die peacefully then just be awake for the rest of my life. I’m not trying to come off as heartless and say that we should kill people that aren’t able to do certain things on their own; I just wouldn’t want my family or friends to see me that way. I also don’t think that if she had been that way for a year, the subject wouldn’t have been so controversial. If she had been that way for only a year, then I think that they would have had more of a reason to believe that she could recover. But she wasn’t in there for a year; she was that way for fifteen years. That’s a decade and a half! Ironically, at the same time that her case was going on, the pope was also in critical condition. He was hospitalized, and he too had a feeding tube that was keeping him alive. During the time that this was happening, my dad and I got in an argument about why they were going to leave the feeding tube in the pope, but take it out of Terri Schiavo. The question my dad asked me was, “What gives him have the right to have a feeding tube, but Terri Schiavo not?” Back with one of my first points, Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and nobody knew if she was feeling pain or feeling happiness since she couldn’t tell us. The pope on the other hand was still able to speak, and he had just gotten the tube - he didn’t have it for fifteen years. The argument did raise a good question. What makes it right to say that one person can have a feeding tube, and another has to have it removed? One thing I feel that they did wrong with removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was that they just let her starve to death. It took her thirteen days without food before she died. I don’t think that was the right thing to do because even if you don’t know what somebody is feeling, you know that when they are starving, they are suffering. They should have found another alternative rather than just removing the tube and waiting. If they were going to remove the food, and let her die in peace, I think they should have done just that. If somebody that was against life support, and was on it, then they would probably be suffering more, since they are on it against there will. Vice versa with someone that is on it, and was against staying on it. Since they were for people staying on life support, then they wouldn’t be suffering as far as we knew, because that was their stance on it. I think that a solution to this problem is to have everyone who is old enough to sign a medical release or contract saying that if they were ever in an accident, or if something happened to them, to leave them on artificial life support, or take them off of it, depending on if they are for or against it. I think if they did something to this extent, then the argument about whether or not to leave them on artificial life support or taking them off of it wouldn’t be such a controversial topic. In my opinion, we will never know how much pain and suffering someone that is in a vegetative state is going through, but with this alternative method, we can at least know if we are going for or against someone’s will if they are ever in the position that we have to face this issue. post comment

[22 Sep 2006|02:22pm] Anthony Lutz Mrs. Robertson 9/29/06 Paper #2 Op-Ed Argument: Terri Schiavo The very controversial Terri Schiavo case left many split right in the middle of how they would have delt with the situation had they been her family, or even Terri herself. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and she had been that way for fifteen years. When this case was at it’s height in March of 2005, I was nineteen. To put that into perspective, I would have only gotten to live four normal years out of the fifteen had I been in a vegetative state for as long as she is. Now that’s a long time! Her parents felt that she could recover, and they wanted the feeding tube that kept her alive to be left in so she could survive and hopefully recover. But to me, if you were in a state like that for so long, even if you did recover, you would never be anywhere close to who you had been before you were in a vegetative state. If I were ever in her place, I would rather be dead, than miserable. “If people are dying, then their time has come and we should just let them die. Why intervene in God's plans? Why cheat the Grim Reaper of his harvest of souls” (Source 1). Now I know we don’t know whether she was miserable or not, but I think I can put it in a better way of what I mean. If I couldn’t walk, talk, eat on my own, or respond to anything in anyway, then I would rather die peacefully then just be awake. I’m not trying to come off as heartless and say that we should kill people that aren’t able to do certain things on their own, I just wouldn’t want my family or friends to see me that way. I also don’t think that if she had been that way for a year, the subject wouldn’t have been so controversial. If she had been that way for only a year, then I think that they would have had more of a reason to believe that she could recover. But she wasn’t in there for a year, she was that way for fifteen years. That’s a decade and a half! Ironically, at the same time that her case was going on, the pope was also in critical condition. He was hospitalized, and he too had a feeding tube that was keeping him alive. My dad and I got in a discussion about this. The question my dad asked me was, “What gives him have the right to have a feeding tube, but Terri Schiavo not?” Back with one of my first points, Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and nobody knew if she was feeling pain or feeling happiness since she couldn’t tell us. The pope on the other hand was still able to speak, and he had just gotten the tube - he didn’t have it for fifteen years. But the argument did raise a good question, what makes it right to say that one person can have a feeding tube, and another has to have it removed? I mean they both need them obviously. One thing I feel that they did wrong with removing her feeding tube was that they just let her starve to death. It took her thirteen days without food before she died. I don’t think that was the right thing to do because even if you don’t know what somebody is feeling, you know that when they are starving, they are suffering. If they were going to remove the food, and let her die in peace, I think they should have done just that. They should have found another alternative rather than just removing the tube and waiting. I think that a solution to this problem is to have everyone who they feel is old enough to sign a medical release or contract saying that if they were ever in an accident, or if something happened to them, to leave them on artificial life support, or take them off of it, depending on if they are for or against it. I think if they did something to this extent, then the arguments about whether or not leaving them on artificial life support or taking them off of it wouldn’t be such a controversial topic. If somebody that was against it was left on life support, then we would know that they would probably be suffering more, since they are on it against there will. And vice versa with someone that is on it, and was for staying on it. Since they were for people staying on life support, then they wouldn’t be suffering as far as we knew, since that was their stance on it. Either way, in my opinion, we will never know how much pain and suffering someone that is in a vegetative state is going through, but with this alternative method, we can at least know if we are going for or against someone’s will if they are ever in the position that we have to face this issue. (Op-Ed) http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200503290756.asp (Source 1) http://www.visualwriter.com/HumanCond/PlayingGodSchiavo.htm post comment

[15 Sep 2006|03:21pm] Anthony Lutz F 1:00-3:55 Op-Ed Argument: Terri Schiavo The very controversial Terri Schiavo case left many split right in the middle of how they would have delt with the situation had they been her family, or even Terri herself. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and she had been that way for fifteen years! When this case was at it’s height in March of 2005, I was nineteen. To put that into perspective, I would have only gotten to live four normal years out of the fifteen had I been in a vegetative state for as long as she is. Now that’s a long time! Her parents felt that she could recover, and they wanted the feeding tube that kept her alive to be left in so she could survive and hopefully recover. But to me, if you were in a state like that for so long, even if you did recover, you would never be nowhere near who you had been before you were in a vegetative state. If I were ever in her place, I would rather be dead, than miserable. Now I know we don’t know whether she was miserable or not, but I think I can put it in a better way of what I mean. If I couldn’t walk, talk, eat on my own, or respond to anything in anyway, then I would rather die peacefully then just be awake. I’m not trying to come off as heartless and say that we should kill people that aren’t able to do certain things on their own, I just wouldn’t want my family or friends to see me that way. I also don’t think that if she had been that way for a year, the subject wouldn’t have been so controversial. If she had been that way for only a year, then I think that they would have had more of a reason to believe that she could recover. But she wasn’t in there for a year, she was that way for fifteen years. That’s a decade and a half! Ironically, at the same time that her case was going on, the pope was also in critical condition. He was hospitalized, and he too had a feeding tube that was keeping him alive. My dad got in a discussion about this. The question my dad asked me was, “What gives him have the right to have a feeding tube, but Terri Schiavo not?” Back with one of my first points, Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, and nobody knew if she was feeling pain or feeling happiness since she couldn’t tell us. The pope on the other hand was still able to speak, and he had just gotten the tube - he didn’t have it for fifteen years. But the argument did raise a good question, what makes it right to say that one person can have a feeding tube, and another has to have it removed? I mean they both need them obviously. One thing I feel that they did wrong with removing her feeding tube was that they just let her starve to death. It took her thirteen days without food before she died. I don’t think that was the right thing to do because even if you don’t know what somebody is feeling, you know that when they are starving, they are suffering. If they were going to remove the food, and let her die in peace, I think they should have done just that. They should have found another alternative rather than just removing the tube and waiting. http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200503290756.asp post comment

[09 Dec 2005|11:28am] Musical Listings Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125 post comment

[07 Dec 2005|09:31pm] The concert I attended was the University Band and the Symphonic Band wind ensemble, on Tuesday, November 29. The way the auditorium was set up kind of surprised me. I wasn't exactly sure what to expect, but when I went inside and the saw how bright it was, and the size of the orchestra, I was pretty excited to actually see it played in person for the first time since I started taking the class. In my opinion, the university band wasn't as good as the symphonic band, but that doesn't mean I wasn't bored. I think my favorite piece they played was the Third Suite. When we came and saw that it was a wind ensemble, I wasn't exactly sure what to expect, but it was pretty cool what we saw. The second band that played, the Symphonic Band, now that was what I enjoyed. The first piece, the overture to "Candide" was pretty cool sounding. I liked the percussion to it, and it had a sort of flow to it. I think I've heard this piece somewhere before, but it kept my attention more than the university band did. The other piece that I liked a lot was the Symphonic Scenerio from "Victory at Sea" I think the begginning sounded like something off of a news briefing on television. I liked the percussion for this one as well, and how they used cymbals. I think that that added a lot to the song, and kept the audience attention as well. The performance all together was shorter than I expected, it was only an hour. I got kind of confused when it was over though, because the conductor left the stage, but the orchestra stayed. Even though I'm not a fan of classical music, I think this was a neat experience to go to so I could understand more about how a classical concert is set up, and how it really sounds when you're hearing it played live. post comment

[07 Dec 2005|09:26pm] Ludwig Van Beethoven is regarded to be one of the greatest composers in history. He was baptized on December 17, 1770 in Bonn, Germany, to Johann van Beethoven, and Magdalena Keverich van Beethoven. Generally, children at that time were baptized the day after they were born, so it is not certain that he was born on the 17th or the 16th, since people of today do not want to make the assumption that he was born the day before, they just say he was born on the seventeenth. Beethoven's first music teacher was his father, Johann Van Beethoven. His father was said to be an alcoholic, and was known for being a violent man, who returned home late at night and dragged young Beethoven from his bed in order to "beat" music lessons into the boy's sleepy head. His father tried to show him off as a child prodigy like Mozart, and there are also stories of his father forcing him to play his violin for the amusement of his friends. Despite these and other abuses which might well have persuaded a normal person to hate music, young Beethoven developed sensitivity, creativity, and vision for music. Beethoven's first music that was published, came out when he was only 12. In 1787, Beethoven went to Vienna, well known for it's music. Count Waldstein engaged Beethoven as a piano teacher and became his friend. Beethoven's mother, Magdalena Keverich van Beethover, passed away when he was 17. He moved back to his hometown, Bonn, and he was then responsible for raising his younger brothers once she had died. Beethoven gave his first public performance as a pianist when he was eight years old. In 1792, Beethoven moved back to Vienna so he could study with Joseph Haydyn. But Joseph Haydyn was growing old, and he didn't have as much time to teach, so Beethoven was sent to study with Schenk, Albrechtsberger and Salieri. From here, Beethoven settled as being a piano virtuoso, and he felt he was pretty established with doing this the rest of his life. He supported himself with public performances, and was considered a freelancer. His public debut was in 1795, and as a pianist, it was reported, he had fire, brilliance and fantasy as well as depth of feeling. Beethoven's composing had three main periods that his works are classified in. The first period, or the early period, you can hear that his influences were Mozart and Haydyn. He still tried adding his own stuff, and branching out in his own style. Some important pieces from this period are the first six string quartets, the first and second symphonies, the first twenty piano sonatas, the first two piano concertos, and my personal favorite, Piano Sonata No. 14 (Moonlight Sonata). The Moonlight Sonata was written in 1801, and was dedicated to his seventeen year old pupil, Countess Giulietta Guicciardi. (2) The first time I heard this song was in a zombie video game, and to get past a puzzle in a certain part, the main charachter plays the piano so she can open up a trapped door. While she's playing, another charachter is trying to find a way out of this mansion that is infested with zombies. To sum it up, the way this piece of music went along with this just made me love the song. It has this sound to it that's so dark, and seems to have so much emotion, that it's just so awesome. The second period, the middle period, began not long after Beethoven knew he was going deaf. This period had some of his larger works that were more "epic" and expressed struggle and heroism. Some of the works Beethoven did in this period were Beethoven's only opera, Fidelio, six symphonies (Nos. 3–8), five string quartets (Nos. 7–11), the last three piano concertos and his only violin concerto, and the next seven piano sonatas including the Waldstein, and Appassionata. My favorite here is obviously his fifth symphony. One of the places I've seen this is on an episode of the simpsons when the town decides to build a new concert hall, so they can be more cultured. Well on the opening night, the song that gets played is Beethoven's fifth symphony. After the first four notes, everyone gets up and leaves. The conductor stops and asks where they're going. Everyone replies that they've already played the first four notes, but the rest are just fillers. I think Beethoven did a phenomenal job with creating a whole symphony based on the foundation of only four notes. This song's drive is really intense, and if you were there on opening night when it was very first played, I'm sure that you would have been blown away. I think that this symphony right here defines classical music. When someone thinks of classical music, this is one song that usually comes to most people's minds. It's something that everyone knows, whether you know it's Beethoven or not, it's still very famous. The third and last period, which is called the late period, began around 1816 and lasted until he stopped composing and died in 1827. This period includes the Missa Solemnis, the last five piano sonatas and the last five string quartets. This period's most famous symphony was Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Although I don't have any specific encounters with it in today's popular media, it is still considered by many, one of his greatest masterpieces. It was composed while he was completly deaf, so that makes it that much more amazing. He completed the 9th symphony about 10 years after his eight symphony. "There are a number of anecdotes about the premiere of the Ninth. Based on the testimony of the participants, there are suggestions that it was under-rehearsed (there were only two full rehearsals) and rather scrappy in execution. On the other hand, the premiere was a big success. In any case, Beethoven was not to blame, as violist Josef Bohm recalled, "Beethoven directed the piece himself, that is: he stood before the lectern and gesticulated furiously. At times he raised, at other times he shrunk to the ground, he moved as if he wanted to play all the instruments himself and sing for the whole chorus. All the musicians minded his rhythm alone while playing". When the audience applauded at the end, Beethoven was several measures off and still conducting. Because of that, the contralto walked over and forcibly turned Beethoven around to accept the audience's cheers and applause. According to one witness, "the public received the musical hero with the utmost respect and sympathy, listened to his wonderful, gigantic creations with the most absorbed attention and broke out in jubilant applause, often during sections, and repeatedly at the end of them."" (Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)) Beethoven contemplated suicide around the time he discovered he was going deaf. He had a troubled life, and never married. He was attracted to unattainable women, women that were either married or aristocratic, and some believe that the reason for his low productivity between 1812 and 1816 was from realization that he would never marry. He treated people badly very often, and moved frequently. Beethoven suffered from poor health, and the exact cause of his death is still uncertain. When, on March 26, 1827, he died, 10,000 are said to have attended the funeral. He had become a public figure, as no composer had done before. The levels of lead taken from a lock of his hair show that his lead levels were 100 times higher than the lead found in most people today. Although Beethoven was a very amazing musician, his personal life was very troubled. So as you can see, Beethoven was a very influential figure when it comes to classical music. There is a certain drive that some have said he has, and that's also something that sets him apart from the rest of the composers writing classical music at the time. I think after listening to some of his works that he is probably my favorite classical composer at the time. What makes it all the more interesting, is that when he wrote some of the later pieces was that he was deaf. I think that if he had the ability to hear what he was writing, it would have been that much better! References Lane, William. "Ludwig van Beethoven." Beethoven The Immortal. 01 Dec. 2005 . "Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)." Classical Music Pages. 01 Dec. 2005 . "Ludwig van Beethoven." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.. 01 Dec. 2005 . "Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CD_ROM. ed. . Musical Listings post comment

[29 Nov 2005|10:03pm] Prescription drugs have been prescribed to many of today's children, and abused by many of today's adults. Over the years, this has become a more common issue in our society, and it has made more people aware of the hazards of what prescription medication can do to an individual. Now, if prescription medication is used the right way, and isn't abused, then the results can be wonderful. A person who is in lots of pain can be treated with painkillers, and not feel so miserable. Or a person with ADHD that has a hard time concentrating or keeping their attention on something, can take medicines that will help them to be able to concentrate. But the problem with this is that there are too many people who are being prescribed these medicines too often, and getting ahold the different types of medications there are has become easier for people that are addicted to them to get their hands on. The purpose of my paper is to explain how more children today are being overmedicated, and how more adults are becoming addicted. Children over the years, have been exposed to more and more medications. It took nearly an entire century for us to realize that children and teens can develop depression, and as of today's society, it is becoming more and more common for them to be diagnosed with it. "In 2002, two million pediatric prescriptions were written for Paxil alone, many to toddlers. A 1999 University of North Carolina study found that only eight percent of a surveyed group of 600 family physicians and pediatricians reported having received adequate training in the management of childhood depression. Yet that did not stop 72 percent of the same group from prescribing SSRIs to patients under age 18." (McManamy)These numbers are astounding to me. The fact that only eight percent of the 600 surveyed physicians (which would be 48) were trained adequatly when it came to managing childhood depression, yet 72 percent of the 600 (which would be 432) still prescribed them anyway! I think that there is something very wrong with that. A child's years are very important, because that is when their still developing, and learning. If we just take the easy way out and prescribe medicine to them, then that could be extremely detremental to their health. If a child is depressed, then counselling or therapy should be used as a solution before anti-depressants are even in the question. I think that physicians just prescribe the medicine so they won't have to deal with the children, but sending them with pills will be the quick and easy solution. "A 2003 FDA analysis of 15 pediatric antidepressant trials found only three established efficacy, with only Prozac reaching the threshold of two successful trials generally required for approval. Moreover, the analysis uncovered worrying data that the kids on antidepressants engaged in more suicidal behavior than the kids on placebos. In October 2004 the FDA instructed manufacturers to warn on the product labeling that kids on antidepressants need to be carefully monitored as "there is concern that such symptoms may represent precursors to emerging suicidality." " (McManamy)As I said earlier, the long term effects are still not known, and sometimes the side effects can make the problems worse than the were to begin with. I myself used to be prescribed to two different anti-depressants. I first started out with Lexapro when I was 16. This was the first anti-depressant I ever took, and the main reason I started taking anti-depressants was because I was not only depressed, but I was suffering from panic attacks at the time as well. I only took Lexapro for a month, but I was quickly taken off of it, because I was recommended to another pharmacist, and he suggested I switch to Paxil. While I was prescribed to Paxil, I was prescribed to Xanax as well. Xanax is a pill that is used for anxiety attacks, and helps to calm you down in situations that may make you feel "panicky". At the time, when I was taking Paxil, I didn't really ever feel happy, but at the same time, I didn't really feel sad either. I didn't realize that I was feeling this way either, so basically I was a walking zombie, and I didn't even realize it! My dosage increased about every two months, and finally it got to the point that it was having reverse effects. The reason I tell you all of this, is because I can vouche that prescribing medicine should be more carefully observed than it is. I think that I should have had more counselling than I did while I was on these, because I really didn't have any at all. I think one of my main problems was not really talking about my problems, and thus the prescribing of pills was not the effective solution. I eventually got weened off of Paxil and Xanax, and it's now been a year and a half since I've taken either pill. So with prescribing of certain pills, mainly anti-depressants, counseling should be a definite must. I'm sure that there have been some success with others who have taken antidepressants, but this was my personal experience with them, and that is why I might come off as being more against them then I am for them. The reason I began with overmedicating children, is because as children turn into adults, if they are overprescribed to certain medications, they may grow dependences or addictions to the certain types of medicines. Although this is not always the case, some adults develop addictions or dependences even in their later years. This is the case of 46 year old Lynn Ray, "who was prescribed to a treatment of tranquilizers after the death of her infant son 15 years earlier. When the doctor stopped writing prescriptions for her and encouraged grief counseling, Ray began doctor-shopping--going from doctor to doctor, fabricating panic attacks, backaches, migraines, and other ailments that would get her multiple prescriptions for tranquilizers and pain killers. "I became a very good actress," Ray says. "I thought I needed these drugs no matter what, even if I had to bamboozle the doctors to get them." "((Meadows, 2001) Someone who is truly addicted to prescription medication or any type of drug in general, will do whatever it takes to get more of it. "Ray had convinced herself that abusing prescription drugs was safer than abusing heroin, marijuana, and other "street drugs." "I would never do those," she says. "I figured I had a prescription for what I was doing, which made it OK." " ((Meadows, 2001) This is a form of rationalization that addicts who abuse prescription drugs may use when they first start taking them. Since they know what their taking, and how much of it they are taking, they feel that they don't have anything to worry about since their doctors know they are taking it. "As Ray's life unraveled, she found out the harm can be great, whether you're using heroin or sleeping pills. She lost her job as a computer programmer after repeatedly showing up late for work and falling asleep at her desk. Her son, a preteen at the time, couldn't understand her erratic behavior and didn't want anything to do with her. Then in 1995, she crashed her car three times in one month while under the influence of tranquilizers and painkillers, seriously injuring others each time. Her driver's license was revoked, and she served a one-year jail sentence in 1998. "I will always know in my heart that I could have killed those people," she says. "It doesn't matter that I didn't kill them; it matters that I could have." "(Meadows, 2001) Lynn Ray is a perfect example of how addiction can take a hold of someone. The most scary part about the whole thing is that she was addicted to something that doctors had prescribed her to. Although I am not blaming them for her getting addicted, I just think that it's ironic that the people who are trying to help her, are at the same time hurting her. It's probably a bad way to look at it, but if you really think about it, that's how I'm seeing this scenario. "About 130 million Americans swallow, inject, inhale, infuse, spray, and pat on prescribed medication every month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates. Americans buy much more medicine per person than any other country." (Americans are overmedicating, say experts, 2003) "Most patients take medicine responsibly, but approximately 9 million Americans used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes in 1999, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Non-medical purposes include misusing prescription drugs for recreation and for psychic effects--to get high, to have fun, to get a lift, or to calm down."((Meadows, 2001) "One of the most abused painkillers, OxyContin, which is a pain-killer used to treat back-pain, has received a lot of attention because of the amount of people who have taken it that have become addicted, or even died from it. Abusers often find ways to speed up the high, and make it more intense by chewing it, crushing it, snorting it, and disolving in water and injecting it. This has gotten so much attention that the FDA has strengthened the warning on Oxycontin. Changes include a "black box warning," the strongest type of warning for an FDA-approved drug. The new warnings are intended to lessen the chance that OxyContin will be prescribed inappropriately for pain of lesser severity than the approved use or for other disorders or conditions inappropriate for a Schedule II narcotic."(Meadows, 2001) Although prescription drugs can be easy to get addicted to, they are actually very helpful if you take them the right way. Here are some things to take into consideration when using prescription drugs. Always follow the directions on the labels of the prescription bottles carefully. Don't increase or decrease the doses without talking to your doctor first. Usually if the medication doesn't feel like it's working, or something is going wrong, the doctor will usually have an explanation and talking to a doctor can help clear things up. Don't stop taking the medication on your own. Sometimes you need to be weened off of it gradually in order to get away from it without experiencing withdrawal symptoms. Don't crush or break the pills. This can usually lead to the medicine hitting you faster and harder, which is usually not what you want when taking medication the right way. Be sure that if you are going to drive or operate machinery, that you aren't going to be drowsy when taking it. And the last thing to be conscious about is not to ever share or take someone else's prescription medicine. As you can see, medication has been prescribed more and more, and to obtain prescription medication has become easier than ever. The question that I ask is how do we prevent this from becoming a further problem? How is a doctor supposed to know whether a child should or shouldn't be prescribed to something? And how does he know that a patient isn't doctor shopping to get a prescription that they don't even need? I don't think that eliminating prescription medicine as a whole would do any good either, because it's not fair to someone that needs these medicines, but at the same time, it's not fair when someone is abusing them for their own needs. This situation is a hard one to make a decision on just like that, but I think as time goes on, we will see more adjustments being made to see who needs them and who doesn't. Americans are overmedicating, say experts. (2003). Retrieved Nov. 29, 2005, from CTV.ca Web site: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050418/americans_overmedicating_050418?s_name=&no_ads=. Iannelli, V. (n.d.). Are we overmedicating our kids?. Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from Generation Rx Web site: http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/mentalhealth/a/generation_rx.htm. McManamy, J. (n.d.). Are we over-medicating our kids?. Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from McMan's Depression and Bipolar Web Web site: http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-103.htm. Meadows, M. (2001). Prescription drug use and abuse. Retrieved Oct. 06, 2005, from U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/501_drug.html. Overmedicating kids?. (2003). Retrieved Oct. 06, 2005, from The Early Show Health News Web site: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/27/earlyshow/health/health_news/main580149.shtml. post comment

[22 Nov 2005|08:38pm] Prescription drugs have been prescribed to many of today's children, and abused by many of today's adults. Over the years, this has become a more common issue in our society, and it has made more people aware of the hazards of what prescription medication can do to an individual. Now, if prescription medication is used the right way, and isn't abused, then the results can be wonderful. A person who is in lots of pain can be treated with painkillers, and not feel so miserable. Or a person with ADHD that has a hard time concentrating or keeping their attention on something, can take medicines that will help them to be able to concentrate. But the problem with this is that there are too many people who are being prescribed these medicines too often, and getting ahold the different types of medications there are has become easier for people that are addicted to them to get their hands on. The purpose of my paper is to explain how more children today are being overmedicated, and how more adults are becoming addicted. Children over the years, have been exposed to more and more medications. It took nearly an entire century for us to realize that children and teens can develop depression, and as of today's society, it is in epidemic numbers. In 2002, two million pediatric prescriptions were written for Paxil alone, many to toddlers. A 1999 University of North Carolina study found that only eight percent of a surveyed group of 600 family physicians and pediatricians reported having received adequate training in the management of childhood depression. Yet that did not stop 72 percent of the same group from prescribing SSRIs to patients under age 18. (1) These numbers are astounding to me. The fact that only eight percent of the 600 surveyed physicians (which would be 48) were trained adequatly when it came to managing childhood depression, yet 72 percent of the 600 (which would be 432) still prescribed them anyway! I think that there is something very wrong with that. A child's years are very important, because that is when their still developing, and learning. If we just take the easy way out and prescribe medicine to them, then that could be extremely detremental to their health. If a child is depressed, then counselling or therapy should be used as a solution before anti-depressants are even in the question. I think that physicians just prescribe the medicine so they won't have to deal with the children, but sending them with pills will be the quick and easy solution. A 2003 FDA analysis of 15 pediatric antidepressant trials found only three established efficacy, with only Prozac reaching the threshold of two successful trials generally required for approval. Moreover, the analysis uncovered worrying data that the kids on antidepressants engaged in more suicidal behavior than the kids on placebos. In October 2004 the FDA instructed manufacturers to warn on the product labeling that kids on antidepressants need to be carefully monitored as "there is concern that such symptoms may represent precursors to emerging suicidality." (1) As I said earlier, the long term effects are still not known, and sometimes the side effects can make the problems worse than the were to begin with. I myself used to be prescribed to two different anti-depressants. I first started out with Lexapro when I was 16. This was the first anti-depressant I ever took, and the main reason I started taking anti-depressants was because I was not only depressed, but I was suffering from panic attacks at the time as well. I only took Lexapro for a month, but I was quickly taken off of it, because I was recommended to another pharmacist, and he suggested I switch to Paxil. While I was prescribed to Paxil, I was prescribed to Xanax as well. Xanax is a pill that is used for anxiety attacks, and helps to calm you down in situations that may make you feel "panicky". At the time, when I was taking Paxil, I didn't really ever feel happy, but at the same time, I didn't really feel sad either. I didn't realize that I was feeling this way either, so basically I was a walking zombie, and I didn't even realize it! My dosage increased about every two months, and finally it got to the point that it was having reverse effects. The reason I tell you all of this, is because I can vouche that prescribing medicine should be more carefully observed than it is. I think that I should have had more counselling than I did while I was on these, because I really didn't have any at all. I think one of my main problems was not really talking about my problems, and thus the prescribing of pills was not the effective solution. I eventually got weened off of Paxil and Xanax, and it's now been a year and a half since I've taken either pill. So with prescribing of certain pills, mainly anti-depressants, counseling should be a definite must. I'm sure that there have been some success with others who have taken antidepressants, but this was my personal experience with them, and that is why I might come off as being more against them then I am for them. The reason I began with overmedicating children, is because as children turn into adults, if they are overprescribed to certain medications, they may grow dependences or addictions to the certain types of medicines. Although this is not always the case, some adults develop addictions or dependences even in their later years. This is the case of 46 year old Lynn Ray, who was prescribed to a treatment of tranquilizers after the death of her infant son 15 years earlier. When the doctor stopped writing prescriptions for her and encouraged grief counseling, Ray began doctor-shopping--going from doctor to doctor, fabricating panic attacks, backaches, migraines, and other ailments that would get her multiple prescriptions for tranquilizers and pain killers. "I became a very good actress," Ray says. "I thought I needed these drugs no matter what, even if I had to bamboozle the doctors to get them." (2) Someone who is truly addicted to prescription medication or any type of drug in general, will do whatever it takes to get more of it. Ray had convinced herself that abusing prescription drugs was safer than abusing heroin, marijuana, and other "street drugs." "I would never do those," she says. "I figured I had a prescription for what I was doing, which made it OK." (2) This is a form of rationalization that addicts who abuse prescription drugs may use when they first start taking them. Since they know what their taking, and how much of it they are taking, they feel that they don't have anything to worry about since their doctors know they are taking it. As Ray's life unraveled, she found out the harm can be great, whether you're using heroin or sleeping pills. She lost her job as a computer programmer after repeatedly showing up late for work and falling asleep at her desk. Her son, a preteen at the time, couldn't understand her erratic behavior and didn't want anything to do with her. Then in 1995, she crashed her car three times in one month while under the influence of tranquilizers and painkillers, seriously injuring others each time. Her driver's license was revoked, and she served a one-year jail sentence in 1998. "I will always know in my heart that I could have killed those people," she says. "It doesn't matter that I didn't kill them; it matters that I could have." (2) Lynn Ray is a perfect example of how addiction can take a hold of someone. The most scary part about the whole thing is that she was addicted to something that doctors had prescribed her to. Although I am not blaming them for her getting addicted, I just think that it's ironic that the people who are trying to help her, are at the same time hurting her. It's probably a bad way to look at it, but if you really think about it, that's how I'm seeing this scenario. About 130 million Americans swallow, inject, inhale, infuse, spray, and pat on prescribed medication every month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates. Americans buy much more medicine per person than any other country. (3) Most patients take medicine responsibly, but approximately 9 million Americans used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes in 1999, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Non-medical purposes include misusing prescription drugs for recreation and for psychic effects--to get high, to have fun, to get a lift, or to calm down. (2) One of the most abused painkillers, OxyContin, which is a pain-killer used to treat back-pain, has received a lot of attention because of the amount of people who have taken it that have become addicted, or even died from it. Abusers often find ways to speed up the high, and make it more intense by chewing it, crushing it, snorting it, and disolving in water and injecting it. This has gotten so much attention that the FDA has strengthened the warning on Oxycontin. Changes include a "black box warning," the strongest type of warning for an FDA-approved drug. The new warnings are intended to lessen the chance that OxyContin will be prescribed inappropriately for pain of lesser severity than the approved use or for other disorders or conditions inappropriate for a Schedule II narcotic. (2) Although prescription drugs can be easy to get addicted to, they are actually very helpful if you take them the right way. Here are some things to take into consideration when using prescription drugs. Always follow the directions on the labels of the prescription bottles carefully. Don't increase or decrease the doses without talking to your doctor first. Usually if the medication doesn't feel like it's working, or something is going wrong, the doctor will usually have an explanation and talking to a doctor can help clear things up. Don't stop taking the medication on your own. Sometimes you need to be weened off of it gradually in order to get away from it without experiencing withdrawal symptoms. Don't crush or break the pills. This can usually lead to the medicine hitting you faster and harder, which is usually not what you want when taking medication the right way. Be sure that if you are going to drive or operate machinery, that you aren't going to be drowsy when taking it. And the last thing to be conscious about is not to ever share or take someone else's prescription medicine. As you can see, medication has been prescribed more and more, and to obtain prescription medication has become easier than ever. The question that I ask is how do we prevent this from becoming a further problem? How is a doctor supposed to know whether a child should or shouldn't be prescribed to something? And how does he know that a patient isn't doctor shopping to get a prescription that they don't even need? I don't think that eliminating prescription medicine as a whole would do any good either, because it's not fair to someone that needs these medicines, but at the same time, it's not fair when someone is abusing them for their own needs. This situation is a hard one to make a decision on just like that, but I think as time goes on, we will see more adjustments being made to see who needs them and who doesn't. 1 John, M. (n.d.). Are we over-medicating our kids?. Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from McMan's Depression and Bipolar Web Web site: http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-103.htm. 2 http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/501_drug.html 3 Americans are overmedicating, say experts. (2005). Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from CTV.ca Web site: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050418/americans_overmedicating_050418?s_name=&no_ads=. post comment

[14 Nov 2005|01:35pm] The sonata-allegro form of music was used in the classical period of music like this. The first movement, or the exposition, began in the home key. If the music was in c major, then the first group in the exposition was used in c major. It basically served as a base to the rest of the piece of music. In the exposition, there was usually a transition were there would be more than one theme from the second group to the first. If the first group in the exposition was in a minor key, then the second group will most likely be in the major group. Sometimes, the music in the second group will change in the mood of the first subject after it has gone into the transition. The development will usually start in the same key that the exposition ended in. It usually has the main theme from the exposition, only it will alter it, or add new more to it to change it around a little.At the end of the development, it will usually turn towards the home key, and enter the third movement, called the recapulation. The recapulation is usually an altered form of the exposition, it will usually change to minor or major depending on the piece. The final movement of the piece, the coda, usually ends with parts of the home key. They can be brief, or they can be very lengthy and elaborate. Instrumental music of this time period was really important, because a lot of the really famous composers were writing music during this time frame. Composers were trying out a lot of new things, and I think this period had a lot of productivity when it came to music. In Haydn's "Symphony #5", there is a very large emphasis on one note in the opening theme that catches everyone's attention. If you had never heard this piece, and had no idea that this was coming, this probably woke you up a little, and made you pay attention to it a lot more closely. In Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", this is a piece that almost anybody recognizes. It's usually associated with the upper class dining in a fancy restaurant in movies, and it's a piece that I think that everyone has heard at least once in their life time. I think that instrumental music was so important, because the common people were taking interest in it as well. It was no longer just left for the elite to hear, but anybody that wanted to could go and be entertained by this. It became something everyone could enjoy. Beethoven liked to have the sound of larger orchestras. He moved the center of the sound downwards in the orchestra, to the violas, violins, and cellos. It gave his music a darker feel than Haydn, and also gave it a drive that makes his music easy to distinguish. Haydn's orchestra had more of a lighter sound than Beethoven's. In Mozart's "Piano Concerto", it had more of a large orchestra sound, and didn't really sound like I thought it was. I was expecting there to be a piano, just because of the name solely. Beethoven's "Piano Sonata" was really smooth, and sounded more like it was a solo written solely for the piano. The main difference between the symphony, and the sonata is that there is only a piano in the sonata. I couldn't tell much of a difference between the concerto and the symphony, I think the concerto was written for the strings with the accompaniement of the piano, and the symphony didn't. I think the concerto brought out the piano later in the music, and having it perform a solo was it's main difference. Compared to the baroque period, I could definetly tell that music in the classical period has evolved a lot. I don't think that music in the classical period is as busy, meaning it knows when to stop, and not just continuely go. I think the focused a lot more on the string sections, which makes this the classical music that everyone associates classical music with. Haydn and Mozart sounded the most similiar in my opinion. I think Mozart's music flowed together the best. Haydn's music was really good, but I think that I'd have to hear more to make a comparison to Mozart or Beethoven. Beethoven's music was the best in my opinion. I think that it never got boring, and it had something to it that just made it really good. So far out of all of the period's of music that we've had to listen to, the Classical period would be my favorite. post comment

[31 Oct 2005|05:03pm] The earliest baroque music was not as exciting as the later music that came around in my opinion. Out of the early baroque music, being Purcell, Strazi, and Vivaldi, the best one was easily Vivaldi. I think this was really good , and I didn't mind listening to the whole thing. The thing about this song that I noticed was particularly interesting was the opening was really soothing and calm. It kind of sounded like the opening to Martha Stewart, or any show involving crafts. But as the song progresses, the violins get more high pitched, adn the pace picks up more, creating a "darker" sound that imitates thunder, or really stormy weather. I had a harder time getting into Purcell and Strazi. The Purcell piece, Dido and Aeneas, sounded like an opera, and the singer sang so high that you really couldn't understand much of what she was saying. I liked the Strazi piece better than the Purcell piece, but that isn't really saying much. I think the accompaniment helped make it more interesting a little. The background voices added a little more to it as well. The later baroque music, Handel, and Bach, were much better in my opinion. With Bach's Cantata No. 80, it sounded more epic with how he incorporated the background instruments and male and female voices. The background music is a lot more "busy." The best way to describe how this piece sounds is that it sounds like something they would use before a king would come out. The No. 8 was a lot more calm, and didn't move around as much and as fast. I think the all around sound of NO.8 was better than the Cantata NO. 80. The last piece done by Bach, Prelude and Fugue in C Minor, was easily the most busy piece from the baroque period that I listened to. Normally, I like instrumental music better, but in the case of Bach, I would have to say that Cantata NO. 80 and the NO.8 piece were written better. The Prelude and Fugue in C Minor sounded like it was from a vampire movie. The Handel pieces were good too. The "Rejoice Greatly" piece sounded similiar to the first two Bach pieces. The background sounded similiar to the Strazi piece as well. The female in this piece seemed to show off her skill as a singer by showing how she can say some phrases with just one breath. The Hallelujah chorus is easily the most famous thing I heard when listening to the baroque music. I think that the reason it is so famous is because there's just something about it that anytime you hear it, you're supposed to "rejoice." The last work by Handel, Water Music, reminded me of Vivaldi, but I still liked Vivaldi a little more. The song sounded like it would be something else played before a king would make his entrance. Although I didn't like this as much as Vivaldi, I would still have to say it was better than the first two vocal pieces by Purcell and Strazi. Out of all of the baroque music, I would have to say I enjoyed the instrumental portion than the vocal overall. I did enjoy some of the vocal music, but I think the instruments were what made it what it was. The thing I noticed with the baroque music was that it was really busy. They all seemed to move around a lot, and did it pretty fast too. So far, out of anything we've listened to, the baroque period has been my favorite. My favorite composers were Vivaldi and Handel. I think I liked them the best, because I could recognize their pieces the easiest. I'm pretty sure I've heard Spring From the Four Seasons, and I know for a fact that I've heard the Hallelujah chorus. I think the factor that I've heard some of this was what made me enjoy it more. post comment

[12 Oct 2005|04:47pm] Anthony Lutz 12:00-12:55 (MWF) 10/12/05 Listening Assignment #3 The reason why the renaissance time period was considered the golden age of a cappella style music, was because vocal music was more important than instrumental music at the time. Just by listening to the three pieces I did, I could tell the people living at that time were listening to more a cappella music. The pieces were well structured, and they seemed to have been written for the purpose of singing a cappella. I noticed in these three pieces that they all had both male and female singeres, where as some of the beginning music we heard did not. The writer's of these three pieces obviously knew what they were doing, and they did a great job at writing a capella music. The Joaquin and Palestina sounded really similiar, and the best way to describe them would be "angelic" or "heavenly". I think they were smoother and flowed together than the Farmer piece. The Farmer piece sounded more "cheerful" and less epic. The Farmer piece also started with a female leading, and went into the females singing with the males echoing back. I thought that was interesting considering the time period, and how the other pieces didn't do that anywhere near as much. The also didn't use all of the voices at once; on some parts, you could hear just women, and others, just men. I think madrigals were so popular, because it was something new, and they were more enjoyable. I think they definetly kept my attention, and they weren't so obscure compared to the pieces from Listening Assignment #2. My opinion on the two styles are as follows: most of the time I prefer secular music, but I think when it comes to a cappella singing, the sacred was a lot better. I think they flowed together better, and wre just all around more enjoyable. However, as I've said it before, I wouldn't listen to it on my free time. post comment

[05 Oct 2005|02:07pm] My topic that I am going to be researching is over prescribing medication. The purpose of my paper, is to find out more about medications that are being over prescribed to children, and even adults, in today's society. I want to find out more about it, because it seems to me, that more and more children are being prescribed medication for ADHD, and I want to find out how prescribing medication works. If there are any other medications that are being prescribed more and more, and just basically find out more about prescription medication as a whole. Because medication to children is being over prescribed, it is causing problems in the way we handle the situation. Instead of sitting with them and working with their learning disabilities, we just automatically prescribe medication to them. John, M. (n.d.). Are we over-medicating our kids?. Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from McMan's Depression and Bipolar Web Web site: http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-103.htm. Iannelli, V. (n.d.). Are we overmedicating our kids?. Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from Generation RX Web site: http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/mentalhealth/a/generation_rx.htm. Overmedicating kids?. (2003). Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from CBS News Web site: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/27/earlyshow/health/health_news/main580149.shtml. Americans are overmedicating, say experts. (2005). Retrieved Oct. 05, 2005, from CTV.ca Web site: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050418/americans_overmedicating_050418?s_name=&no_ads=. post comment

[28 Sep 2005|01:22pm] The gregorian chant reminded me of something that monks in a cave would sing next to candle light. Compared to the Gaude Maria, I felt it wasn't as exciting, and a lot more ancient. The drone note in Gaude Maria seemed to really add a lot to the song. I think the Gaude Maria had a lot more structure to the songwriting, and I thought it was realy interesting how both songs seemed to drag out the first syllable. I liked the polyphonic sound better than the monophonic sound. I think the monophonic sound has it's advantages though. If you wanted a song to be structured to where only one voice was singing a part of the song, then this would be the style to go for. However, the polyphonic sound makes a more complex sound. I'm more of a fan of different parts being sung at the same time, and if I were to pick between the two, I would definetly go with the polyphonic. I don't think it's really fair to compare the religious music to the secular music. Since the Gregorian Chang and Gaude Maria were written so much earlier than the third piece of music I listened to. I liked how the music in the third piece moved around in the sections that it did. I also think the lyrics were better as well, they seemed to have more of what someone in our present time could relate to. Since none of the pieces of music were written at the same time, I won't completely give the Gregorian Chant and Gaude Maria as bad of criteria. This listening assignment was harder for me, because the music we were given to listen to didn't get my attention as much as the piece from the first assignment did. I think the pieces for this assignment were a lot more bring compared to the first assignment. I really didn't like the music from this assignment, where as the music from the first assignment I at least respect. I'm more of a fan of instrumental classical music, than I am a fan of classical music with voices. post comment

[12 Sep 2005|02:59pm] The beginning theme caught my attention, because it sounded like it was from the movie Star Wars. I thought it sounded really good in the sense of how it flowed together. My favorite part of it was the entire orchestra playing the theme together, I think it really added to the song. When the song switched from the theme to the variation, it seemed to flow between the transitions really smoothly. There was a noticeable difference, but at the same time, it went really well with the theme. The woodwind variations sounded more like parts of the musical The Nutcracker. The changes between the families was really interesting. I found myself able to identify some of the solo instruments without having to look at my paper. My favorite family in the variations was the violins. I liked how it picked up the pace more in the song. I really liked he percussion part of the variations. I like it when you hear a lot of instruments that aren't normally used in songs. The whip was what specifically caught my attention. I've never heard one used in a song like that, and the way they used it added that much more to the song. The fugue wasn't what I was expecting it to be, but it was still really cool. I think the use of that many instruments at the same time was really cool, and how the song came together in the last few minutes was interesting as well. The theme heard over the fugue was a great way to end the piece. The way the families each had individual solos in the song was a good way to show how each instrument is important in an orchestra. I think that if you wanted to show the different instruments in an orchestra, ths song would be a pretty good choice. I'm not really a big fan of classical music, but this was a pretty good song. I wouldn't listen to it on my free time, but that doesn't mean I don't respect it. So my opinion on this song is that it's good, but if I was riding in the car, it wouldn't be something I would willingly pick out. post comment

navigation [ viewing | most recent entries ] [ go | earlier ]