The article is from the Los Angeles Times Website: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-national-flu-emergency25-2009oct25,0,7907031.story , written by Janet Hook on October 25, 2009.
Apparently, our dearest president Barrack Obama declared the H1N1 Virus a national emergency. By doing so, he gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius temporary authority to grant waivers that will expedite the steps needed in order to set up off-site emergency rooms to treat the flu "victims" separate from other patients. It's supposedly a preemptive measure "to ensure that the tools for a quick response were in place".
So this H1N1 virus has gotten quite a notoriety because it is now considered to be a pandemic. Ooooh. A pandemic. How fancy sounding. Anyway, it's the influenza virus -- just a different strain, so what's all the fuss about? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 36,000 people in the United States die each year due to flu complications. There's only been 1,000 deaths since the start of the "pandemic" -- which was April of this year. That's 6 months. If it follows the trend, another 1,000 people will die additionally in the next 6 months. Whoooaaaa, 2,000 deaths in one year from the H1N1 virus, compared to the seasonal flu. That's huge. I suppose the people from the White House who referred to the H1N1 virus as a pandemic were right. The H1N1 virus is like the black plague of the 21st century. It's gonna kill off all the Americans. How scary.
I think the article, though informative, is scaring people into thinking that this is gonna kill off the entire population of the great United States of America. What's up with the usage of the word "victims" when referring to the flu? Is it some sort of serial killer out to kill the types of people that would make them notorious? A pandemic? No. AIDS and HIV are pandemics. And what's with the whole situation that I'm hearing about mandating the vaccination of H1N1? I understand that people are trying to stay alive, but mandating the vaccination of H1N1 is a bit of a stretch, I think. Also, at the end of the article, with the national emergency declaration, some hospitals are making off-site tents to isolate the infected patients. What is this? Leprosy? Does the declaration of the H1N1 virus as a national emergency and pandemic create some sort of social stigma? I haven't heard of any off-site tents for the "victims" of HIV and AIDS. Are they being isolated as well? Are the articles covering the "swine flu pandemic" some sort of propaganda scaring people shitless with this whole thing? I just think people should just say it exactly how it is, without all the medical jargon that all sound so serioius. That way, people don't go nuts, increasing the amount of hypocondriacs with have in this world.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
English Blog Numero Three: Civil Rights Curriculum
This was taken from the ABC News website: (http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-schools-introduce-civil-rights-curriculum/Story?id=8793332&page=1), written by Carmen K. Sisson on October 11, 2009.
The story is about the US State of Mississippi mandating Civil Rights to be part of the US History curriculum. It is said to be a groundbreaking reform -- believed to be the first one in the country. It will be taught and tested all throughout the Mississippi public school system. Proponents such as state curriculum specialist Chauncey Spears wonders how we can have such a strong educational program with high-achieving students who have little understanding of history. Black civil rights organizer Jacquelyn Martin believes that healing does not begin until the problem is talked about. The story also covers some opponents of the new bill, saying that the wound is still fresh, and it does not need to be talked about.
I believe this story is worthy of attention because it is in fact true that many students in this country do not know much about their nation's history, let alone the number of presidents this country already has had, and the names of prominent leaders who run this country. I found the news with little bias, since Sisson covered both views on this new law. However, even though both sides of the situation were outlined, I found that very little was said about the opponents of the bill. Regardless, I found this story interesting, and I think it should really be part of US History curriculum. Not just in Mississippi, but nationwide. It sounds interesting to learn the struggle that Americans went through to shape this country that I now call home. And I do agree with one of the proponents saying that healing does not begin until we start talking about it. The story of ordinary groups of people going through extraordinary lengths to acquire the freedom that they have been promised after the Emancipation Proclamation is extremely moving. The injustice and inequality that happened throughout those years should be something that students nationwide should be familiarized with, because I believe that through this, they will know the origins of all the prejudice and hatred that are plaguing the society. That way, educating everyone about that particular issue would eradicate most ignorance that some people hold to this day about race matters.
Also, maybe, just maybe, people would be a little more careful in their assumption that all the Asians they meet are Chinese. HAAAAH. Completely irrelevant.
Fin. :D
The story is about the US State of Mississippi mandating Civil Rights to be part of the US History curriculum. It is said to be a groundbreaking reform -- believed to be the first one in the country. It will be taught and tested all throughout the Mississippi public school system. Proponents such as state curriculum specialist Chauncey Spears wonders how we can have such a strong educational program with high-achieving students who have little understanding of history. Black civil rights organizer Jacquelyn Martin believes that healing does not begin until the problem is talked about. The story also covers some opponents of the new bill, saying that the wound is still fresh, and it does not need to be talked about.
I believe this story is worthy of attention because it is in fact true that many students in this country do not know much about their nation's history, let alone the number of presidents this country already has had, and the names of prominent leaders who run this country. I found the news with little bias, since Sisson covered both views on this new law. However, even though both sides of the situation were outlined, I found that very little was said about the opponents of the bill. Regardless, I found this story interesting, and I think it should really be part of US History curriculum. Not just in Mississippi, but nationwide. It sounds interesting to learn the struggle that Americans went through to shape this country that I now call home. And I do agree with one of the proponents saying that healing does not begin until we start talking about it. The story of ordinary groups of people going through extraordinary lengths to acquire the freedom that they have been promised after the Emancipation Proclamation is extremely moving. The injustice and inequality that happened throughout those years should be something that students nationwide should be familiarized with, because I believe that through this, they will know the origins of all the prejudice and hatred that are plaguing the society. That way, educating everyone about that particular issue would eradicate most ignorance that some people hold to this day about race matters.
Also, maybe, just maybe, people would be a little more careful in their assumption that all the Asians they meet are Chinese. HAAAAH. Completely irrelevant.
Fin. :D
Sunday, October 4, 2009
English Blog Numero Dos: Soda Tax
The article is from the LA Times website, written by Jerry Hirsch on October 3, 2009. The website is .
The story states that The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lobbying to add an excise tax to sugared drinks because they conducted a study in which they found that states -- including California -- whose budgets are strapped can generate up to $10 billion a year by adding a 7 cent tax per 12 ounce can of soda or any other beverage. They also believe that raising the prices would reduce consumption, and as a result reduce obesity (considering that many studies were conducted proving the correlation of sugared drinks and the disease) and skyrocketing medical costs. However, people who disagree with the tax see the tax as a sort of intrusion on people's personal choice, believing that the tax would come off as controlling people's dietary choices.
I find the article free of any biases. It's not a very controversial topic, and even though the matter has sides, the journalist did not disclose his opinion on the news. Politics aren't really my thing, nor is lobbying for taxes, but it does make sense to put a tax on sodas. If it helps raise money which will help the budget deficit, then yeah, that's fine. It's not as though soda is a super major thing like adding a tax on the very precious polluted air we breathe. I suppose it's also somewhat of the same concept as the tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol. Plus, if it reduces consumption, it can definitely help with the ever increasing health problems that are pestering Americans. It's funny how the cheapest things could cause the most debilitating problems in a person's life. Like sex. Sex is cheap, and it causes such a pain in the ass when done wrongly or stupidly. However, there are instances when sex is definitely NOT cheap... but I digress.
So my point being: I guess I wouldn't mind the tax being imposed; I'm not a big soda drinker anyway. I prefer water. :D. Do they have a tax on that one too?
The story states that The Center for Science in the Public Interest is lobbying to add an excise tax to sugared drinks because they conducted a study in which they found that states -- including California -- whose budgets are strapped can generate up to $10 billion a year by adding a 7 cent tax per 12 ounce can of soda or any other beverage. They also believe that raising the prices would reduce consumption, and as a result reduce obesity (considering that many studies were conducted proving the correlation of sugared drinks and the disease) and skyrocketing medical costs. However, people who disagree with the tax see the tax as a sort of intrusion on people's personal choice, believing that the tax would come off as controlling people's dietary choices.
I find the article free of any biases. It's not a very controversial topic, and even though the matter has sides, the journalist did not disclose his opinion on the news. Politics aren't really my thing, nor is lobbying for taxes, but it does make sense to put a tax on sodas. If it helps raise money which will help the budget deficit, then yeah, that's fine. It's not as though soda is a super major thing like adding a tax on the very precious polluted air we breathe. I suppose it's also somewhat of the same concept as the tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol. Plus, if it reduces consumption, it can definitely help with the ever increasing health problems that are pestering Americans. It's funny how the cheapest things could cause the most debilitating problems in a person's life. Like sex. Sex is cheap, and it causes such a pain in the ass when done wrongly or stupidly. However, there are instances when sex is definitely NOT cheap... but I digress.
So my point being: I guess I wouldn't mind the tax being imposed; I'm not a big soda drinker anyway. I prefer water. :D. Do they have a tax on that one too?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)