Sunday, February 22, 2009

Is the financial aid test the new ACT?

With the economic recession in full force, more a more students are in need of financial aid for college. Even as the economy seems to be crumbling beneath us, college prices are as high as ever. The financial aid form is the only hope many teenager have to receive a college education. "As of Feb. 15, the Department of Education had already received 2,213,408 forms, 20 percent more than at this time last year." The only problem is that the six page form, that contains over 100 questions, is not an easy task to complete. The questions are extremely difficult, and it asks for a lot of information that families aren't able to find without hassle. The test itself is so tough, that families are paying people to fill it out for them. Companies like Fafsa charge up to 100 dollars to complete the test. The test is very intimidating, and because of this many families are steering clear from the aid form. They are steering clear, and as a result they won't be able to pay for their kid's college.
The financial aid form can take hours to complete, and even when finished isn't very accurate. Congress is currently trying to simplify the test, and make it easier and more efficient. President Obama has plans to get rid of the financial aid form, but it doesn't look as though it will be redone this year.
This past week in class, we have been talking about privilege, and what comes along with the title. The idea of a high class education came up as something that can go under definition. After having read about the financial aid form, I now have a better understanding of the number of students who cannot afford to go to college. Why does it have to be a privilege to go to college? Shouldn't every student have to the opportunity to continue their education? The financial aid form shouldn't to hold people back from the rights they deserve.

Monday, February 16, 2009

The Black Heart

I recently read the book The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. The book tells the story of many Vietnam soldiers and their experiences not only in battle, but in life before and after the war. Many soldiers die in battle, while others are wounded as well. Along with those injuries, many soldiers suffer from injuries that aren't as visible. Post-traumatic stress disorder is extremely prevalent in soldiers who have been in the Vietnam War. The events that soldiers have seen and experienced are so traumatic that it can affect the soldier months or even years after the actual incident takes place. They are haunted by nightmares and flashbacks that constantly bring them back to war. They try and find their place back in society, but nothing compares to what they experienced in Vietnam. They find themselves in a depressed state that they cannot escape. It is a horrible disorder that many men have to live with for the rest of their lives.
After having read The Things They Carried, I was shocked to find out that soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder aren't given the the Purple Heart. "Historically, the medal has gone only to those who have been physically wounded on the battlefield as a result of enemy action." Even with so many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the Pentagon recently made the decision that soldiers suffering from the disorder do not recieve a Purple Heart, and many are very upset. The "invisible wounds" that come from post-traumatic-stress disorder aren't recognized, but injuries like a “perforated eardrum" are given the Purple Heart instead. Who is to say a soldier suffering from a broken leg has a greater struggle than one suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder?
With this new decision made by the Pentagon, many have been protesting for those suffering from the disorder. The idea of a Black Heart medal has come up. This would be a medal given to soldiers who are or have suffered from post -traumatic stress disorder along with other combat stress. This way, all men injured in battle can be recognized.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Plastic surgery: not as good as they say it is

Women all around the world seem to be diving into the plastic surgery pool. It has become so popular that woman are treating surgeries more like a shopping trip than a procedure. Instead of buying a shirt, they are purchasing a new nose or pair of lips.
The craze has its benefits, I mean it has to or else it wouldn't be so popular. You can basically reverse the job of mother nature. You can pick out of a selected gene pool, and make your big nose small and pointed. It can also speed up a diet by simply not having to diet it all. The "tummy tuck" can now take care of that extra fat you don't want anymore. Plastic surgery gives women, and men, the opportunity to make themselves look better. At least they think they are making themselves look better, and I guess that is all that really matters. Plastic surgery can give people that confidence boost they always wanted.
With all of these advantages that plastic surgery offers, is it really worth all the hype? I think that plastic surgery may have it's benefits, but I don't think it is as good as people make it out to be. Sure plastic surgery can improve certain "problem" areas in your body, but I can never really change the way you feel about yourself. It could be argued that by having plastic surgery you are really diminishing your confidence because instead of finding the beauty in yourself, you are finding the beauty in what a doctor can turn you into. I'm not saying plastic surgery is bad by any means, but people make it out to be so important, that it becomes something much more than it is. It began as something to aid in reconstruction after trauma, then led to fixing slight imperfections, to now becoming a way of life for many men and women as they grow in age or grow tired of their look. I believe that plastic surgery is romanticized to a point where the goodness that once coincided with it has been lost.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

What is a sin?

In class this past week, we have been discussing the conscience of the character Huck Finn in the novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. The specific passage we have been examining involves the decision Huck has made to steal Jim out of slavery. In his heart, he knows that Jim is one of his best friends, and is a man equal to him. The only problem is that society and his conscience is telling him the opposite. As a result of this, he believes he is committing a sin, and acting against god. Is it really a sin to go against society when society is wrong?
Is it a sin to act irrationally when your beliefs tell you it is right? The Puritan's of early America believed that the numerous people they hung were in fact witches and acting with the devil. Their faith proclaimed that the devil would temp the souls of the "weak," and then Satan himself would act through them. They truly believed that they were in danger, and that the people accused needed to be stopped. They didn't understand that accusing people without a fair trial is unjust. They didn't realize that the rumors may have been false or untrue. Though, did they commit sin? They didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. They were afraid for themselves and their community, but even so, many don't believe that is an excuse for the murders they committed.
Is it a sin to do wrong when you know you won't get caught? Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was recently spotted smoking what was believed to be the illegal substance cannabis. The swimmer is an Olympic champion, and a role model to people all over the world. He disappointed many when the picture was published. The sad truth is that many people believe what he did wasn't wrong. The mistake instead was letting himself get photographed. He is under the spotlight constantly, and he should know that he cannot create a bad image for himself; especially during a time when he is making millions in endorsement deals. If the picture of Michael Phelps had never been brought to the publics’ attention, would people still think he committed a sin?
What is a sin? This question seems to be asked over and over again, and the answer only seems to be getting more blurred as time passes. Is there a general rule for when something sins or does it differ from person to person? This unspecific conclusion only makes it harder for rightness to be enforced.