bLOG #i7-morearticlesdebateonhealthcareinamerica

How these articles impact my article in Life: The Book--

Article 1: Obama's 'Public' Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation by Larry Kudlow

"The president’s grandiose government-takeover-and-control strategies are going to make things worse and worse — that is, unless members of that tiny band known as the Republican party can stand on their hind legs and just say no. The Republicans must come up with some pro-competition, private-enterprise alternatives for health, energy, education, taxes, and trade that will meet the yearning of voter-taxpayers for a return to private-enterprise American prosperity and opportunity."

Of course, this embodies the opinion and tone of Kudlow's whole article, that we should be moving in the direction of privatization and deregulation towards free-enterprise and 'purer' Capitalism. However, if this does happen, then there will be a kind of free reign in all fields and research. Thus, genetic engineering and eugenics research would not be inhibited by the government at all. There would only be social pressure at most, and when ever science and research is based solely on social trends, we have seen science and research support racism, segregation, involuntary sterilization, and genocide in the past.

Article 2: A Health Reformer's Scary Diagnosis by George F. Will

"...the number of seniors living long enough to have five or more chronic conditions -- 23 percent of Medicare beneficiaries--has increased. Many of those conditions could be prevented or managed by better decisions about eating, exercising and smoking. The 20 percent of Americans who still smoke are a much larger percentage of the 23 percent who consume 67 percent of Medicare spending. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of Medicare spending pays for care in the final year of patients' lives."

Will makes several points about health care in general, but one that applies to my article is that he has expressed that lack of patient prevention and bad hygiene and habits accounts for a lot of health care in the USA. If people just didn't smoke or ate right and exercised, it would make it a lot easier on the current government-funded health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Now imagine if those people had genes that helped them stay skinny or athletically-inclined. What if you could engineer in genes that were from people with almost no risk of heart disease and, perhaps, even blood types (there are studies that show blood types determine effects of diet on your body) so that people could eat unhealthy foods and drinks, but still stay healthy. For a lot of people, you're only doing wrong when you get caught. Being able to enjoy all the causes and have none of the bad effects would be a definite promoting argument of genetic engineering--after all, wouldn't there be less of a need for health care after that?

Articles 3 & 4 are very convincing in getting the point across that Universal Health Coverage would simply be 'getting what we've paid for.' However, the 4th article doesn't talk about full coverage or single-payer health care, but instead addresses it from an economic viewpoint. Americans are paying money and not getting their fair share of it. Of course, in the case of genetic engineering and possible segregation due to 'access,' it seems that Hoven would not consider that a problem. They've got the money so why not let them have the advantage? Money makes money, and everything else. So people who can afford to do it shouldn't be worried about whether or not the working class hero can afford to genetically modify his offspring--it's a personal thing that you can either afford or not. Especially since in the case of designer babies it wouldn't be a necessity, the access issue would exist in the minds of many and also be disregarded as an issue by many others.

Health Care-What the Articles Say and What I Believe

Health Care is essential to all the parts of Life: The Book. Even in Eugenics (the betterment of the human race through genetic technology of the past or present), Health Care has played and plays an important role. For Health Care in general could be defined as everything to do with caring for your health including check-ups, hygiene, surgery, and research & clinical testing. Research has gotten modern medicine where it is today and Eugenics has a lot to do with research and experimentation. Thus, if we end up having universal health care, but the cost impacts genetic R&D, then proponents of eugenics may not support such a system. Moreover, if we have universal health care but embryonic genetic modifications are not covered by it, then access and knowledge would determine what parents used the technology and what parents weren't able to. One argument against eugenics is how limited "access" to such technology could foster discrimination or, for lack of a better term, a "GenRich" class of society that would be inherently superior. However, this problem would be solved if the 'designed baby' was covered under government-funded healthcare.

Of course, like the debate over Eugenics, the war over Health Care is also fought on moral, ethical, economic, political, and social battlegrounds.

Currently, it is generally the Democrats (for Universal Healthcare) versus the Republicans (for Privatization). Of course, in A Good Case For Universal Healthcare, Bryan Young gives poses a provocative position to the conservative Christian Republicans who are fervently against Universal Healthcare:

"I'm sure there are a dozen Christian conservatives reading this now and asking themselves, 'Why should we help with this? Why should we help people who can't afford to take care of themselves?' In the novel Jailbird, Kurt Vonnegut provided me with the perfect answer to these questions and it's very simple: 'Why? The Sermon on the Mount, sir.' " This gives a number of reasons why at least these sort of Republicans should be for health care and not against it.

Not providing people with health care prevents them from getting medical attention, which is why "more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should," as stated in Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege by Senator Bernie Sanders. This alone shows how deeply access can affect members of society. Many proponents of genetic engineering say that access will not be a problem. However, if 18,000 people die because they don't have medical insurance or out of neglect: how many people will not even consider genetically modifying their offspring if and when the technology is available?

In my article, I will touch upon the fact that there might be possible side-effects to genetic engineering, especially when, as far as we know, almost all of our DNA is "junk." Thus, although we may be able to make fluorescent bunnies and the like, in humans changing eye color or behavioral patterns might affect or disturb some other gene (since multiple genes or parts of genes can come together to code for different phenotypes). Moreover, these disturbances might not be evident in the first generation. And people are paying for this... Going back to my previous point about restricted access to genetic technology, already people have restricted access to healthcare even if they can afford it. For people with mental illness "insurers avoid covering those with a diagnosed mental disability because of the chronic nature of the problem, which means treatment is often needed for years, and medications are expensive. This cuts into profit margins" (Health Care as a Human Right by Helen Redmond). What restrictions might be imposed on patients of genetic engineering? Could parents with a chronic illness be able to get health coverage in the first place, which might then cover embryonic genetic modifications?

Of course, the arguments surrounding genetic modifications and eugenics could all go the other way, after which they are very similar to the arguments for and against Universal Healthcare. Perhaps people who can't afford to genetically alter their offspring, even themselves, don't deserve it since they don't have the money. And asking insurance to cover something like genetic modification and improving traits? That's what Jacob Hornberger describes in Health Care Is Not a Right--Universal Health Care would create a situation where "everyone is using government to get into everyone else’s pocketbook to pay for his health care expenses, he is simultaneously doing his best to protect his own income and assets from being plundered by the government to fund everyone else’s health care bills."

Moreover, since genetic modification, like healthcare, is not something we naturally are born with, insurance companies or government agencies shouldn't have to cover it. If you can pay, you can pay; if you can't, well, heck, that's the way it's been for thousands of years. This very convincing point is made in There Ain't No Such Ting As a Free Lumpectomy by Jacob Sullum: "Did Paleolithic hunter-gatherers have a right to the 'affordable, comprehensive and high-quality medical care' that the Congressional Progressive Caucus says is a right of “every person'? If so, who was violating that right?" I don't have an answer for that, except that I don't believe in Paleolithic hunter-gatherers unless you're referring to the descendants of Adam and Eve, but that's another argument for another day.

Nonetheless, just as Eugenics would clearly create defining lines between the genetically modified and the natural children and people, Universal Health Care might really define a 'client class' and 'payer-class,' especially since Universal Health Care would tax people with more income more money (income-based tax-scale). This is argued in Health Care is not a right by Iain Murray and Roger Abbot: "Far from saving money and helping out the little guy, a health care “public option” would further increase costs and reduce individual liberty, while creating a subject client class that has an incentive to lobby for further handouts."

My Opinion

I think that we should have Single-Payer Universal Health Care. It would cost less money in the end. We would provide for everyone. For those who argue that everyone's hands would be in everybody else's pocket books, it's a false argument. Everybody needs doctor's appointments, check-ups, physicals, etc. Also, for those who think that it would be like communism, that's not true, it would be like socialism (although in the minds of many Americans there is no distinction). My answer: that's good. Ultimate Capitalism, the Utopia of Ayn Rand--a society of greed, make it or break it, and, yes, economic survival of the fittest--is what is promoted by opponents of Health Care. This leads to corruption, not competition; not the lowering of prices,  but the raising of them according to a standard agreed upon in the industry. This goes against my beliefs which are in why, the Sermon on the Mount, sir.

The Sermon on the Mount, which contains all the fundamental moral principles of conservative Christianity, was spoken to the poor, the hungry, the meek, and the merciful, who would receive the blessings of God. These principles are not the only ones in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus Christ exhorted the people to reflect God to the world, so that their good deeds stand as examples to mankind--is promoting a 'dog eat dog' society a good deed, something that Jesus would do (Matthew 5: 14-16)? He also tells his followers to love people who don't love or give anything to them (5:43-47) and to give to the needy as charity, not to impress people (6:1-4). Moreover, selfish actions that reflect sentiments like 'I don't want other people to be using my money' and 'if they want to live they can get the money themselves' are directly warned against in the Sermon on the Mount (6:24). Jesus also says the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12- "...So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..."

I think that perhaps one could call health care a supplemental right because it ensures life (helps me live), liberty (can't do anything if I'm not healthy), and the pursuit of happiness (although I was pretty happy in the hospital). Notice that both liberty and the pursuit of happiness are dependent on life, which is dependent on health among other things. Moreover, although instinctively I don't want to 'spread the wealth' especially when it's my wealth we're talking about, I always know that if I was somebody who could not in any possible way afford adequate health insurance, I would support Universal Health Care. In addition, I am opposed to the corruption and usury of all the big medical industries, which charge as much as they can for vital commodities which can determine whether we function right, or live or die.

Blog #15

Using a specific example, describe what makes a compelling character in narrative nonfiction or literary journalism.

There are many things that can make up a compelling character. Among them are attributes like:

• Goals and desires
• Accomplishments/Achievements and even Shortcomings
• Obstacles he/she faces
• What they like/dislike--opinions, views
• All of the above and anything else that can CREATE A CONNECTION with the audience
• Moreover, the character has a DIRECT CONNECTION to the subject of the article and therefore works as a key example, a manifestation, of the topic to the audience

Chrissy Falletti, in the article Open Channels by Jerome Groopman, is a great example of a compelling character. The beginning of the article revolves around the tragic story of Chrissy's experiences with Cystic Fibrosis. When we see the facts and truths of this genetic disorder from the eyes of a girl who has it makes us sympathize and connect with her and others that also have Cystic Fibrosis. We see her parents--a doctor and a nurse--having to raise their daughter with the knowledge that there is nothing they can do to stop this disease. We see the challenges she faces as she tries to breathe through her ever-congested lungs and searches for cures. The audience is compelled by her, as a living, breathing human being, to understand and empathize with those who have Cystic Fibrosis and feel upset at the channels successful trial drugs must go through before they are available to people like Chrissy. She faces an obstacle that effects every part of her life and her goal is to overcome it; although that obstacle is not ours, the audience can realize that Chrissy's may be greater or equal to their own crises in many ways, and everyone wants to overcome that which stands in their way. The frustration she feels when things go against certain success, the desire to feel normal, these are all feelings we feel too. A compelling character serves as the conduit through which the audience can understand the subject or topic of an article and be truly affected by mere words on a piece of paper--because they are more than boring nonfiction: these words tell the story of a person like you or me, and sooner or later we come to the point where we say, "Man, I gotta do something about this."

Using a specific example, describe what makes an interesting plot in narrative nonfiction or literary journalism.

An interesting plot answers, through a storyline or order of some sort, the basic questions about a subject or topic: Who?, What?, When?, Where?, Why? Darwin's Surprise is a good example of an interesting plot because it answers all the vital questions in an orderly fashion while presenting both sides of the issue. This is done by answering, thorugh the course of the article, 2 main research questions: What are the ethical/social/political/scientifif implications of brings retroviruses back to life? and Are the risks worth the benefits? However, this is narrative nonfiction or literary journalism--without a story or character study the process of answering these questions is pretty boring. But in Darwin's Surprise we follow Thierry Hiedman and his colleagues who have brought these viruses back to life and their goals for curing current viruses like HIV/AIDS through this new technology. We can follow Howard Temin and David Baltimore and see how their studies reveal that, perhaps, without retroviruses there would be no live birth and no mammals and no great human evolution into the world we have today. Finally, after controversy over these variouis scientific studies and arguments, the audience is brought to the conclusion that this technology is as vital as the survival of a continent--and when Africa falls to AIDS, what part of the world will be defeated by microbes next?

What specific steps do authors take to write non-jargon-based scientific writing?

Authors take several steps to write non-jargon-based scientific writing. Most of the time, authors take a complicated scientific subject and break it down into steps and simple terms that people understand--i.e. genetic mutations are described as " 'mispellings' in an individual's DNA," which, if identified, ""would allow science to identify an individual's disease risks well in advance of onset..."--mutations are just described as spelling errors, which pretty much sums up their basic definition. Also, analogies are sometimes used in order to compare a complicated subject to a much similar topic that everyone can relate to, making them transitively understand the scientific concept.

What specific steps do authors take to encourage their readers to connect with their stories?

Different readers connect to different things in stories, and most everyone is a different reader. Therefore, writers put many different elements into their stories through their characters, settings, and conflicts. For example, Francis Collins in The Covenant is a character who goes through many moral and mental changes, who faces challenges even as Director of the National Institutes of Health. He was essentially a farmboy raised in an agnostic family with little formal schooling. By the time he was studying for his Master's at Yale, he was an atheist. But afterwards, he became a fervent Christian. This and other issues can connect the reader to Collins and the article as a whole.

A Basic History of the American Government's Role and Involvement in the Shaping of Health Care in the United States of America [Short Edit]

In pre-20th century USA, for most Americans health care meant being looked after and tended to by family members or townspeople when one was ill or injured. The thought of paying a large sum of money so that you could visit a hospital would have been a foreign concept to most of America, which was rural at the time. However, there was the small-town doctor who could tend to colds and fractures, yet his fees were inexpensive (a little more than any other worker's) and his medical knowledge (in comparison to modern health) was relatively basic. In 1913, the American Medical Association (AMA) stated that only 10% of America's physicians were making a comfortable living. But times were changing.

With technological advances in the areas of transportation, communication, and medicine, there were more effective hospitals and doctors. They could now treat and cure more people; in some cases, these services were free, but in others meant lots of fees. There were different health plans in which a person could pay either a physician, hospital, or organization for his/her healthcare, but most were costly. However, some employers offered health insurance as part of the job, and the premiums weren't a lot of money at all. In Europe, healthcare 'reform' was one of the main issues. Specifically, in 1883 Germany, there was Compulsory Sickness Insurance, a precursor to national healthcare (socialized medicine). However, as healthcare and health insurance became increasing profitiable in the NineTeens, "critics said that it was 'made in Germany' and likely to result in the 'Prussianization of America' (Lepore, The New Yorker, 2009)." Obviously, the American government didn't even consider healthcare reform as the war with Germany continued. After the war was over, the cost of doctors and hospitals had not gone down, and neither had the anti-German sentiments that had helped silence the voices of healthcare reform 3 years previous. The Western world was trying to stabilize and return to normalcy; this, in addition the Red Scare of the Bolshievik revolution, meant no social reform of any kind was tolerated. As a result, the U.S. government did not regard it as an issue either until the Great Depression.

As America got deeper into the Depression, less and less people were able to pay the hospital and doctor's fees illness required, so less people even went to hospitals for treatment. Once again, some sort of national health coverage was considered in U.S. government. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to include national healthcare as part of the Social Security Act, which was part of thew New Deal.  However, pressure from the AMA and private insurance interests dissuaded Roosevelt from including the reform in his already controversial bill. Nonetheless, later on in 1938, Roosevelt's Administration sponsored the National Health Conference in order to address the problem of  a large number of uninsured Americans--who would care for them and their needs? However, heavy publicity against National involvement in healthcare swayed public and political opinions against reform to the point that in 1939, the Wagner Health Bill, which included Federally-funded healthcare, was easily defeated in Congress. Moreover, that same year Germany invaded Poland and the Second World War began in Europe, shifting the earth's focus from the welfare of some Americans to the welfare of the whole of earth.

 After WWII ended and America quickly surpassed its pre-war status, President Harry Truman tried to increase federal involvement in healthcare. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" was the other Truman Doctrine. Despite this, his efforts only succeeded in preventing the passing of bills that would give the AMA and private insurance companies even more control over who got insurance and received treatment and who didn't. Truman based his actions on the belief that the lage profits physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies amassed were, essentially, ill-gotten gains taken from sick and ailing patients that had no other choice but to pay.

In 1960, the Kerr-Mills Bill gave Federal funding to States to aid the "medically indigent" (eldery) who were part of government health programs. However, many saw this bill only as a compromise between national healthcare and special interests. President John F. Kennedy, after his election, unsuccesfully attempted to convince Congress to consider Federal-funded healthcare. Nevertheless, Kennedy's fight against segragation and discrimination led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by acting President Lyndon B. Johnson after JFK's assasination. It was the beginning of the end of segregation and places like hospitals now had to extend federal funded programs and charity to colored peoples. This paved the way for the Social Security Act of 1965--another law that reflected Kennedy's desires and goals. This Act included 2 key government programs that help millions of Americans with healthcare and have come to be dubbed Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare primarily covers Americans 65+ years old and Americans younger than 65 who are disabled. It is fully funded by the Federal government. In contrast, Medicaid is a program that States can voluntarily enter into, where they can provide up to half of the funds for the need-based programs they administer. Eligibilty is mainly based on income and financial resources, making Medicaid a welfare service.

After the Medicare and Medicaid of the 60s, President Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance and presented the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act, which would have required employers to get health insurance for their employees and created a Federal Health Plan that any American could join and pay into based on their income. It was never passed; however, the HMO Act of 1973 was passed to regulate and promote managed care. During the 1980s, a bill was passed to make sure that healthcare plans could extend after retirement.

In 1993, the Clinton health care plan was unsuccessful and only served to create disunity among democrats (who created their own different reform plans) and unity among its opponents. Dissenters of this health care plan dubbed it "HillaryCare."

The Patients' Bill of Rights (which is rather self-explanatory) was proposed in 2001. The initiative was strongly opposed by the AMA and major Pharmaceuticals and was not passed in 2002.

In 2003, the United States National Health Insurance Act was proposed but initially had small support and was therefore not a big issue. However, that same year, President George W. Bush passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, which, among other things, gave people on Medicare prescription drug benefits.  In 2007, interest in the US National Health Insurance Act was renewed and in 2009 the bill was renamed the United States National Health Care Act and reintroduced to the legislative bodies. Although the bill is at the forefront of healthcare reform, focus is primarily on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unlike HillaryCare and the health plans proposed by Roosevelt (either Teddy or Franklin, I'm not sure), Truman, and Nixon, the health plans that have been considered in Congress in the past 2 years only provide a subsidy, and don't address mandatory national healthcare. After a long process of politics as usual--Legislative debates, vote-counting, filibuster threatening, bill amending, compromising, and name-changing--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate and, eventually, the House of Representatives, after which it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.  7 days later, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 into to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. On March 23, a lawsuit filed by 13 states challenged the bill. Alas, among their reasons cited was a violation of States' Rights...anti-federalism, non?

The best conclusion to give at this point in history is: the debate over the issue of healthcare (or pretty much any issue) continues.

For more info., check out these resources:

http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec20171/index.htm

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/339640/a_brief_history_of_health_care_in_america.html?singlepage=true&cat=5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a_brief_history_universal_health_care_efforts_in_the_us.php

and, of course,

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/12/07/091207taco_talk_lepore

Blog #14: Life: The Book & Humanities

Since most of my article will talk about Eugenics before and during World War II, most of genetics at that time was unknown. Scientists did not even know the structure of DNA more or less how it coded for phenotypical traits, Biology's Central Dogma, or how to alter those genes to produce designed babies. However, the ramifications of pre-1950s Designer Baby technology--of any technology--that could be manipulated to favor certain phenotypes over others are still present today. Now, it is more and more likely that our research in genetic engineering could lead to genetically, and thus phenotypically, altered babies.

The Eugenics that I'm looking  at was made up of Mendelian Genetics mixed with a good amount of pseudo-science. Eugenics proponents made up charts of families' genes which they would observe and study--complete with recessive and dominant alleles in the places they thought they would be. Although there were many who thought eugenics should be pursued in order to put an end to genetic disease, this meant, in thought and practice, sterilizing or euthanasia for those with an actual hereditary disease or disorder, or those merely deemed 'unfit' (survival of the fittest). Today, genetic research is being conducted to see if, indeed, we can truly design our babies. It is most likely that we have all eaten genetically modified food, now just envision that gene therapy transferred into the human genome. In Biology class this year we will be genetically modifying an E. Coli bacteria and making it phosphorescent. This is a very simple, but very effective, example of what we can do with genetic engineering and gene therapy. We could fix genetic disorders and hereditary diseases, but we could also create our children to be a certain way, one way, controlled. And just as the societal trends of racism, segregation, and favor of Nordic (what Hitler called Aryan) races over all others led to mass sterilization programs in America and horrible tests and euthanasia in Nazi Germany, so will today's social trends alter the course of Nature and make a separate group of children that will be, essentially, the products of society. That current ramification may or may not deter Americans, for there would certainly be many who would want to have those perfect children despite the fact that their children will automatically be a separate group. But can we blame those who would do it if they had the chance? Imagine the other extreme: having a child with Downs Syndrome or Muscular Distrophy or extremely bad Hemophilia.

As a result of such horrible genetic disorders, there are several Intstitutes part of the National Institutes of Health that are looking into gene therapy and genetic engineering as part of their programs: The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and most importantly The National Human Genome Research Institute. In addition to these actual institutes are private research projects that receive NIH funding and grants. The NIH and subsequent programs are focusing on the hereditary-disease prevention aspect of gene therapy, however, even though that is the current goal, Designer Baby technology could easily be developed in the process. A good article on that is from Time Magazine at

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html

It touches on how the genetic-researching community views their work and goals, and some of the ethical implications these genetic advantages could pose. Of course, for me and many adults, genetic experimentation may bring to mind the history I touched upon earlier about Hitler'sNazi Germany and his euthanasia programs for the 'unfit,' weak, or feeble as a result of hereditary disorder or misevaluation, his concentration camps that separated the less-than from the Master Race, and the eugenics experiments that Mengele and other scientists performed on camp occupants in order to see if they could make the Master Race stronger and smarter and handsomer than the rest of the world. This article, although very opiniated, is historically accurate and very striking in its summary of negative eugenics:

 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL&ao=all

One thing that may not be addressed in the cited news articles is the implications of eugenics on the natural course of the world. Already, we have seen the negative impact of Western civilization on nature: ecosystems, biomes...

the ozone layer, have all been negatively effected. Chemicals and pollutants have been put into the air we breathe and the earth. What might happen if man was even more intelligent, more capable, lived longer, and had more dominion over not only the rest of nature, but also the rest of his race?

So many implications could be discussed concerning eugenics and genetic engineering and above is a negative outlook on those areas of study/research. However, I could talk about how a vital part of eugenics was and is the prevention and elimination of hereditary disease. Imagine the millions of children that are subjected to these diseases and disorders, cast upon them by no fault of their own, with no way to cure the devastating effects these genetic mutations have on their bodies and minds. America's sterilization was an means to an end, and though it was horrible in many regards, it began good intentions that continue today through gene therapy and the like. Refer to this website for pro-Eugenics arguments and Eugenics info. then and now:

http://www.onelife.com/ethics/eugenics.html

Blog #13: Life—The Book! Possiblity 3

1. I could do an article on the HIV/AIDS virus that has become a worldwide epidemic that is deadly and has affected millions of people and numerous governments. The biological element would be explaining how the virus works. The humanities aspect would be the global concerns of a disease that we cannot cure, one that destroys our bodies' defenses. The mathematical aspect would talk about the statistics and exponential rise of deaths and people infected with HIV/AIDS in relation to countries, continents, and lifestyles.

2.

3. Viruses inject their genetic information into their host's cells, telling those cells to make more viruses instead (or in addition to) their normal functions. The AIDS virus is so devastating because it lowers our body's defenses in the immune system and is unaffected by the protein our body makes to prevent that sort of attack. In addition, it has spread worldwide as a sexually transmitted disease and contamination through blood.

4. Globalization has created epidemic after epidemic, whether it was the bubonic plague from Genoese and Venetian merchants in Europe, or Spanish conquistadores in the Americas, the spread of Western civilization throughout the world and global interconnectedness has made old diseases close to obsolete and new, deadlier ones much more affective and devastating in range and trauma. HIV/AIDS is a modern example of how globalization has allowed the virus to spread from the jungles of Africa to the Carribean to every inhabited continent.

Blog #13: Life—The Book! Possibility 2

1. I could also do an article on the Realities of Cryopreservation and the current science and technology on trying to halt death by freezing living things. This could also have the humanities aspect of preserving certain members of society for future generations, a concept similar to time capsules--and why not use a primary source if you can?

2. This just might happen:

3. Cryogenics involves freezing living things in order to preserve them for future research or for archives. It involves the use of cryoprotectants to prevent tissue damage so that cell death or decay is halted and the organism is effectively preserved.

4. Many science fiction stories and fantastic speculation surrounds cryogenics and mainly the preservation of humans so that they can awaken in the future. This article would examine how these fantasies have affected scientific cryo research and also the truths of whether or not it i possible. This would also tackle the moral and ethical aspects of temporarily stopping death, and the pros and cons of freezing people.

Blog #13: Life—The Book! 1st Possibility

IDEA 1: "Hitler's Designer Babies"(?)"Designing the Aryan Race"(?)"Blond hair and Blue eyes"(?)...

1. My Big Idea has to do with both Adults and Conception in that it deals with adults 'designing' babies. My article will have to do with Eugenics and its impact on history through the Nazi regime of the Third Reich and the human testing that went into attempts at 'selective breeding.' Since people knew that certain things coded for all of our physical traits, scientists tried to alter those traits in either mature subjects or in embryos inside pregnant women. Much of it was based on psuedoscience, but a lot of it was also based on mathematical probabilites that are directly connected to Mendelian genetics. Nonetheless, scientists still attempted to alter the phenotypes without changing the genotypes.

2.Nazi propaganda showing how it costs good families too much money to support people with hereditary diseases. [eugenics can fix that, and scientific experiments done on euthanized test subjects tried to cure hereditary disease and unwanted traits (like those deviating from the Aryan Race.)]

 

3. As far as I know, designing phenotypes of babies would mean altering their genotypes before development, which would mean going into a zygote's DNA and altering its genes or even inserting clips and sections of genes from other people into that baby. Thus, a person who only had Brown-eye alleles could have blue eyes, it's just a matter of the genetic engineering applied to crops today. Designer baby-making could also, on a simpler aspect, just employ Mendelian genetics and those sorts of probabilities, making it possible to accurately predict what a child will look like from his zygote and abort that zygote and invitroly fertilize another one that contains all the traits parents want afterwards.

4. A big part of Hitler's agenda (which means the Nazi agenda) was to establish the great Aryan race of Germany over the other, non-Anglo-Saxon races, specifically the Jews and the Slavs. This was racial profiling taken to the point of genocide and mass murder. Of course, their racism also heavily endorsed Eugenics, which would allow them to distinguish Aryans and create a Master Race, so that all Germans could be handsome and intelligent. Thus, eugenic testing was experimented with on people in the concentration camps. This meant that people imprisoned because of their race or illness (religious beliefs, political views, pedofilia, and homosexuality counted as illnesses) could be experimented with in the name of Eugenics. Therefore, the Holocaust not only entails the mass murder of millions upon millions, but also the cruel medical testing and abuse that occured in pursuit of Eugenics.

BLog #12....BrainstORmING INTERNSHIPS

In my ideal internship, I want to be working with a School Psychologist and actually being a part of what she does, not just a fly on the wall. Hopefully, that means I'll be able to observe and advise the processes of school psychology. I heard that in many cases, parents will hire "advocates" to argue that their child is psychologically impaired in some way that makes him subject to special privileges. When parents do this just so that they can put their kid in an expensive private school, it is no longer the parents' expense, but instead is a burden that the child most deal with. Anyways, these meetings between School Psychologists and Advocates are kind of like debates in a way. Definitely melodramatic.

 

I would like to use my writing skills to help write up proper, professional reports on evaluations.I see myself doing a lot of listening and observing, but also, say, taking notes at the same time and then comparing that mine to my intern's.Those kinds of things would be very constructive and force me to think how I'll have to when I'm an actual School Psychologist. It would certainly be interesting to learn all about clinical Psychology.

 

 

I want to learn the structure of psychoogical evaluation, how to observe/listen to the patient--what to look for, how to write a properly structured report, how to actually help a child improve his mental state or speed things along.

 

 ... the notes I'll be taking...

Blog #10

Well, (1) I don't think I'm ready
(2) How I know I'm not ready is because I'm still editing and working on all the scirpts andn opening statement and stuff
(3) My last-minnute prep is listed above...it's not procrastination, it's just revisions and polishing and the stuff that needs to be done so that we crush the defense, or at least sound so awesome and amazing that the audience will love and remember us even if we lose, and hopefully support our side even if the jury doesn't.

i still think i should say "the two white defense lawyers will try and tell you..." as I point at said "two white lawyers."

it could be even more effective if i was like: "The two white defense lawyers will try and tell you that racial profiling will not happen as a result of this law. They will try to prove that skin color will not be considered when a policeman suspects a person..." something like that.