Cats VS. Dogs

People are always arguing about whether cats are better than dogs or vice versa. Although mostly everyone’s choice is their personal opinion, there have been many studies and surveys conducted that show how cats and dogs can affect your life so maybe, it can help you choose which kind of animal you want as a pet when you have to decide between buying a cat or a dog.

In America, around 77.5 million people own dogs while a much larger number of 93.6 million people own cats. The upkeep for a cat generally costs less than a dog and recent studies from the University of Bristol in England showed that people who owned cats are more likely to have university degrees than dog people. On the other hand, a study from Queen’s university in Ireland said that people with dogs have lower blood pressure, cholesterol, and suffer fewer serious medical problems so they are usually healthier. Ownership of a dog can lead to increases in physical activity, which results in better fitness. In another survey with 4,500 participants, people answered questions about their personality and the results were that people who possessed dogs tend to be more social and outgoing while cat people are more likely to be creative and philosophical. This could be because dogs are companionable and enjoy being with their owners while cats usually keep to themselves and if they hang out with you, they leave whenever they feel like it.

Dogs and cats have a bigger role in your life than you think they do. They are not just cute and cuddly and nice to have around but they also help you in different ways. Hopefully, this can give you a little more insight into whether owning a dog or a cat is better for you.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-13/health/cat.dog.personality_1_cat-people-dog-neuroticism?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6279701.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8501042.stm

Behind the Crystal Ball

Is there a science on predicting the future? Or is everything just a ploy to take your money? Psychics claim that they have a gift that they want to share with the world. All the things that all psychics say and their actions to their customers are just things to make you think that what they are saying is true. For example holding the clients hands helps the reader feel the customer’s physical reactions to certain statements; the subject thinks that the hand holding is a way to establish a connection between themselves and the reader. Another trick that the psychics will use is called “shotgunning.” It is a technique where the say lots of random things hoping that one of the things they say is true. All of the statements they say are vague so that it will apply to more people than a very specific statement because the more vague the more likely it will be true. For example saying “You will go on a great trip.” What the prediction leaves out is when you shall go, where, and what makes it a good trip. This statement applies to most of the world’s population. Our brains also tend to forget the incorrect predictions psychics give us and we focus on the one’s that are true. So the next time you go for a psychic think of what they say and watch their body language because what you might be paying for is a very expensive guess.

http://www.ehow.com/way_5263245_psychic-reading-tricks.html

http://www.psychic-experiences.com/psychic-articles/genuine-fraud-psychics.php

http://listverse.com/2008/04/10/top-10-psychic-debunkings/

Kony Is Overrated

Kony, Syria uprising, riots in Egypt and revolution in Libya; what do all of these have in common? All are recent events that are occurring or have occurred on the vast continent of Africa. These events and the people related to them are directly responsible for thousands of deaths. American NATO and Canadian forces have intervened in the conflict at Libya and a small detachement of US soldiers was sent to Uganda to track Joseph Kony. The Invisible Children Foundation was set up to stop Joseph Kony from using children as both soldiers and sex slaves. Lets be realistic now what else are children good for? As my father always told me, "Your the next best thing to useless". The man that set up this foundation is named Jason Russel. Jason Russel was born in California. Lets have a look at life in California compared to life in Uganda. California- No sex slavery, No child soldiers. Uganda- Sex slaves, Child soldiers. Now lets look at China- Chinese food. Now in China they eat a very different kind of food then we eat in North America, that does not meen Chinese food should have a website built committing itself to its downfall and a biased video created on youtube designed to pull the heart strings of it's viewers. Just like Chinese food belongs culturally to China in the same way child soldiers and sex slaves belong culturally to Uganda. The video that went viral slandering Joseph Kony and his ideals managed to brain wash its viewers in such a way that many took it upon themselves to pass the word and preach how evil and how Kony must be stopped. non of these people looked at the ambiguity and bias of what they are hearing. Jason Russel, the man who took it upon himself to make a change that is honestly futile and miniscule in comparison to some of the other types of conflict in Africa such as the East African food crisis, the unrest in Northen Africa and Middle East and the list goes on. Is every thing Jason says about Joseph the truth? After all he was just found masturbating and vandalizing vehicles in San Diego (click here). People need to analyze the credibility, bias and ambiguity of what they hear before they post on the internet and commit themselves to a cause that they have never heard of before they watched a 29 minute long video.

Like Wild Fire

We've all heard them. 9/11 was allowed by the government and is proven by the way the towers fell, the Apollo moon landing never happened and was staged in order to encourage patriotism, etc. but conspiracy theories are more than they appear to be. Though they seem like a tale concocted by some clever, pretentious wiseacre that had nothing better to do, they actually have an alarming amount of evidence to support them. For example, the theory that the earth is flat at first thought seems like an absurd impossibility, but perhaps we are just convinced because we have been told by people who were sure of what they think they know, and who are we to question those who came before us? Well perhaps we should. The flat earth theory is surprisingly convincing and has some valid arguments. Assuming the earth is flat, for example, the south pole makes up the outside of the earth and the north pole is at its centre. This statement resembles a fairly poor attempt at establishing any kind of credibility for this particular theory at first, but actually is supported by the fact that no plane has ever flown in a straight line across the south pole. Maybe a while ago we would have been able to blame the conditions or climate on the lack of achievement, but with technology that we have today, compared to travelling through space, flying across the South Pole should be an easy feat, unless, of course, that is where the earth ends, in which case it is impossible and would offer an easy explanation.

Wether or not they are true however, it is undebatable that conspiracies get passed on as easily as gravy on thanksgiving. Once you have one person convinced you have everybody convinced. Especially with all the idiotic stories in the media lately, who wouldn't believe a well backed-up argument about how the U.S. government somehow caused the 2004 Tsunami? No matter what you are told, or how unreasonably stupid it is, you will consider its existence for even a little while.

The World Will Stop At Nothing

Millions of posts flood the cyberworld via social networking.The whole world wants to make a change and they will stop at nothing to do so. Its the only choice we have. Come together or face the worst. I watched a video last night that had more impact on me then almost any video that I have viewed on youtube but i think that was the point. It is the video that has exploded overnight on facebook and has over a million hits on youtube. So today I am going to become like everyone out there. I am going to help make Kony famous.

The point of this video that I watched was not to get you to donate money to the organization Invisible Children but to raise awareness to this criminal and for everyone one to know his name and understand what he has done. Some people out there might still be wondering "Who is this Kony? What is so bad about him?", well just take 30 minutes to sit down, watch a video that has spiralled around the world and discover what this man is doing and why he needs to become famous. Yes I understand that these events have been taking place for years now but is it such a problem that we are finally doing something about it? If you can see, the reason why everyone is reposting this video on their facebook walls is so it spreads, and it has. I was watching the views of the Kony 2012 video on youtube it took less than six hours before the number reached 7 million. So it has spread around the world. Friends show it to their friends and so on. So now, basically his name is out there. One mission accomplished.

The question is, Is it right that over thousands of children fear for their lives? the answer should be no. Just imagine if you were in their shoes. How would it feel if everyday you were terrified you would be abducted? What would it be like to have a gun thrust into your hands and then were instructed to point it at your parents and pull the trigger. Take that feeling and times it by thousands because thats one of the many things Kony has done.

What this man is doing is not right and it is definitely not for the greater good. How could it be? If you can tell me how in-slaving ( sex slaves, army slaves etc...) over 30,000 children could be for the greater good, please comment at the bottom of this blog.

I know this is a typical topic of today to blog about but if I am able to get one person to join with the rest of the world and make Kony famous, even if one person learns his name after reading this, these words will have done their job.

If you really want to help click on this . Join with the rest of the world share what he did. Prove why he should be caught.

Here is his face. Now lets make him famous.

Swearing: A Technique of Persuasion?

What better way could you think of ending off your argument by saying your opposition is, “Complete and utter bull#@*!”. Obviously Showtime’s Penn and Teller do not hesitate to use this word to demonstrate to their audience the nonsense of their challenger. But is it an effective method of persuasion?

According to Scherer and Sagarin’s, 2006 experiment on this technique, a light swearing increases a speaker’s persuasiveness and has no effect on the speaker’s credibility. But why, why would humans believe someone who is prone to using obscenities to express oneself? The Persuasive Power of Swearing agrees that it all depends on a person’s passion and intensity; the audience sees this expression of words as a way to show their beliefs and passion on a certain subject. It will almost seem as if you are so engulfed in your arguments and opinions that you cannot help but swear as you would when talking about it everyday. This causes the audience to feel a connection with your thoughts and is capable of putting real emotion behind your words, as swearing is a part of humans tendencies.

According to some statistics the amount of swearing increased by 94.8% during the family hour on television, which means swearing is a normal occurrence in our lives. So it is apparent that swearing is human, and humans tend to believe humans, and perhaps the reality of Penn and Teller’s show is the reason they are so effective in persuading their viewers.

One must keep in mind the levels of severity of the swear words chosen to put across a point. Of course going off on a rampage of curse words would not be effective. But some say you shouldn’t use swears at all because it will throw off your audience. But that audience isn’t being thrown off, their attention is being grabbed. And how can grabbing someone’s attention not be employed in any persuasive technique?

The Labyrinth

There exist hundreds and thousands of theories in science. String Theory. the Big Bang Theory, and the Flat Earth Theory are just some present today. Though most have factual evidence to support them, some are completely ridiculous. On a similar note, religious beliefs have been present for as long as mankind has lived. Religion and science together have clashed for centuries. What are your fundamental beliefs? Perhaps the most important question sought to answer in every culture, and in science is what happens when we die?

Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan military and political leader, in his dying moments, "was shaken by the overwhelming revelation that the headlong race between his misfortunes and his dreams was at that moment reaching the finish line. The rest was darkness. Damn it,' he sighed. 'How will I ever get out of this labyrinth!'' (John Green, Looking for Alaska). What then, does this mean? I believe that the labyrinth refers to the suffering of humanity and our aversion to the unknown. We fear death. The idea that when we die, there is perhaps darkness, or simply nothing, seems to be an impossible concept, and one most people wholeheartedly shy away from. How can someone just cease to exist? So is religion real, or is it something we make up in our minds to escape the permanence of death and the eternity of suffering? Do we create "fact" in science? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, Christians in Heaven and Hell. But what if there really is nothing? Would it be easier to live, fully understanding how fleeting the flame of life is, and how black the end may be? 


We all need something to pull through our own labyrinths; we all need something to believe in and hold on to. Religion and science are brilliant for this. Fact or not, they provide an out, and an escape from whatever the end may be. Choose to believe, choose not to. What matters is finding the thing that will get you through this labyrinth.

Robots vs. Humans: How thin is the line?

Robot: A mechanical or virtual intelligent agent that can perform tasks automatically or with guidance, typically by remote control.

Humans: Have a highly developed brain and are capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving.

For many centuries, the human race has fathomed over the possibility of a mechanical helper. Through the rapid growth of technology, this has now been made possible. Scientists and engineers have invented robots that are able to perform to the highest level and precision,yet do not hold the higher intellectual ability to reason and retaliate against their owners. Robots not only serve to aid humans, but are now able to travel to places that humans cannot reach. As more and more people of all walks of life take interest in robotics, the more rapid new innovations for robots start to appear. From teachers to surgeons, robots are now starting to take over human jobs, and are even believed to perform at a higher level than us.

It is a widely known fact that robots can do much good for us, whether it is working in a factory screwing bottle caps, or helping a paralyzed patient become mobile again. With the introduction of robots, employers no longer have to go through the trouble of finding a suitable candidate for a simple job. Furthermore, since robots aren't actually people, they do not require food, water, air, or other survival needs, and therefore do not require a pay check - Another plus for employers. Simple enough, right?

Wrong. In 2000, Honda pushed forward a humanoid robot - ASIMO. A dream come true, some might say at that time. At 130cm tall and 54kg, ASIMO was designed to operate in real-world environment, with the ability to walk or run on two feet at speeds up to 3.7 mph. It was the company's initial goal to create a walking robot which could not only adapt and interact in human situations, but also to improve the quality of life. Today, ASIMO has made public appearances around the world, become an innovations attraction at Disneyland in the USA, and has helped to encourage young people to study Science and Mathematics. No doubt, ASIMO has pushed the robot world into a new age, taking them one step closer to contending with us humans.

With robotics rapidly becoming one of the leading fields of science and technology, humans are starting to explore the possibility of human and robots coexisting on this very earth. When this event does happen, it will be one with many ethical, social and economical problems. Their brings me to my next point: Ethics of artificial intelligence.

This branch of ethics is typically broken up into roboetics (concern with the moral behaviour of humans as they design, construct, use and treat robots) and machine ethics (concern with the moral behaviour of robots)

Roboethics was first coined by a roboticist GIanmarco Veruggio in 2002. It considers both how artificially intelligent beings may be used to harm humans and how they may be used to benefit humans. It is predicted that concepts like autonomy,learning, free will, decision making, freedom and many other issues might come into play while dealing with this new situation, and the design of roboetics will require the commitment of experts of many different disciplines.

Machine ethics, however, contrasts with roboethics quite a bit. In this case, this branch of ethics is concerned with the moral behaviour of Artificial Moral Agents. In 2009, academics and technical experts came together to discuss the potential impact of robots, and the possibility that they might become self-sufficient and have the ability to make their own decisions. Issues like robot's autonomy and their threats towards humans were brought up, noting that some machines had already had semi-autonomic functions, especially in the military.

Although this branch of ethics and this idea of living in tandem with robots are a new idea to the human race, we must recognize that this new addition to our world is rapidly growing.

On a similar note, here is the link to pictures from the latest International Robot Exhibition held in, (of course) Tokyo Japan, where humanoid robots wowed the crowds. Take a look, and make your judgement on this issue :)

If you'e survived this long blog post, throw in a comment or two down below in the little comment area. I'd love to hear about it :)

Rex

The Un-Avoidable Question.

Now matter how much we try to avoid it, life ultimately asks us all one fundamental question:

Is this all there is to life, or is there something that comes after the end?

Throughout history, no matter how developed a civilization was, they all found their own way of answering this very question. The Roman’s explained death with with a voyage to the underworld; a place you could reach only by crossing the river Styx. The Egyptians believed that stone pyramids needed to be erected so that all your possessions could follow them into the after life. Buddhists believe you are reborn in your next life as the creature best representing your karma. And Christians pray to a god who they believe decides whether they will spend their afterlife in heaven or hell.

And all though their is no concrete proof for any of these religions, they all give their believers the same thing: HOPE. Hope that there is something more. Hope that life’s hardships will be rewarded. And maybe that is exactly what people need, in order to go through life without constantly worrying about when their last breath is going to be.

The fact is that finding an answer to this question is not simple, or quick. There is no one right answer or wrong answer, which is exactly what makes it so personal. It can take a life time to figure out your own views and to decide how you are going to interpret the unknown.

No matter what you believe in though, the only thing we can truly take ownership of is living each moment to it's fullest.

http://www.jayssite.com/stuff/life/life.html

Have My Baby

A long night with your friends, and one thing leads to another. You’re in bed with you’re friend of the opposite sex. No it’s not a sleepover. And yes you’re about to have sex. Yet, she tells you she’s on Birth control. What is birth control? Well, birth control can come in many forms, from condoms, both male and female, to pills that women ingest. These controversial forms of preventing babies have been brought in court several times, with various religious groups going against it.
The Catholic Church has stated that the only form of contraception that they allow is abstinence. But we live in the 21st century; kids are beginning to have sex earlier and earlier and without these forms of contraception, there will be thousands of babies born premature and into unsafe households.
Their arguments lack evidence, stating that diseases like HIV can pass through a condom and that birth control will make your kid loose moraled. I’m sorry world, but the typical 21st century teenager becomes sexually active at the age of 16 and society won’t revert back to the day and age where sex meant babies.
“In 1997, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family stated: … it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.” The values that their arguments lie upon are belief, with no true studies that show “true love” isn’t blemishing because sex is less occurring. (In fact you’d probably think the opposite) But all in all, belief what you want, but birth control isn’t going away anytime soon.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

Presumed Dead Act

"Byzantine" laws in England and Wales determining the affairs of those who go missing are
so bewildering that they should be replaced with a simplified presumption of
death act”- A Report by MPs.
In Britain, the families of those who have had a family member disappear, have to fight their way through a series of unrelated requirements set out by police, lawyers, and banks before they can move on from their lost one(s). A new legislation could establish a process by which relatives and partners are granted a certificate of presumed death, resolving all the affairs of a missing person. The Association of British
Insurers fears that the change might lead to increased theft through ‘simulated’
disappearances. While Joe Apps, of the UK Missing Persons Bureau, said: "There are very few cases like John Stonehouse or Lord Lucan, for example, where do people just seem to disappear and are never seen again. We are all just so well connected". Scotland has
already introduced a similar act in 1977, resulting in about four to five cases
a year; only one person subjected to a presumption of death order has since
reappeared. Another reason to introduce this act would have to do with the individual's
financial affairs; properties could be lost through unpaid mortgages and their bank accounts can drained by years of direct debts and insurance payments that do not benefit missing people. A
Presumed Dead act wouldn’t cost Britain very much since “less than 1% of the
200,000 people a year reported missing have not been found within 12 months”-The UK Missing Person Bureau.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17114868

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/22/law-missing-people-simplified-mps?newsfeed=true

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/mps_want_presumed_dead_law_for_missing

Christian Science Killing Children

In Canada the law is that the fetus isn’t a person until the moment is it born. A competent person being defined as someone who has rights and the ability to make stable choices. This is and always has been a touchy topic, from abortions to birth control. “Politicians are to scared to go there”- An incredibly smart man once said. How do we decide when a person becomes a person? “We” don’t, the government decides, making the laws around personhood as broad as they can go.

We as a society react so heavily to these conflicts, but we don’t often touch on Christian Science; a religious practice following a book written by Mary Baker Eddy made in 1879(http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science). This practice includes the healing of Jesus “proven” through its medical exercise. This basically means that parents/guardians, through Christian Science can withhold their child from “un-needed” medical attention. Allowing them to legally make decisions to consciously end their child’s life. That child will never get a say in the life it was about to live, because of the choices his parents made for him. “to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” (Church Manual, p.17). This blog isn’t to shun Christian Science, I simply believe that a living person shouldn’t be denied health care because of their parents beliefs. If the child had cancer, do you think its right to just pray that the cancer goes away and not get the medical help?

Designer Labels for Kids?

From Alber Elbaz to Vera Wang, it seems fashion’s biggest designers are falling all over themselves to create signature clothing lines for kids. Versace just opened a kids’ boutique on the ground floor of its Milan headquarters to house their children’s line, Young Versace, which will sport a huge lilac and white fairground ride and littered with super-sized candy canes. Lanvin Petite launched pop up stores in Paris, Monaco and New York, selling $1,570 pink taffetta trench coats, $1,105 red sun dresses and $645 shrugs and Vera Wang is launching a junior’s line for Kohl’s, called Princess Vera Wang, scheduled for August 2012. And these are just the latest designers to join the craze, Dolce & Gabbana, Burberry, Stella McCartney and Christian Dior already have kid’s lines. Is this an excessive fad or just the way things are going to be from now...well that depends on who you ask I guess. These Kiddie Couture lines depending on who you are, are not healthy for our children. There used to be a distinct line between kids clothing and adult clothing but now that line barely even exists. Children do not need to be dressing like a 24-year-old model. The whole point of growing up is to have fun and get stains on your clothes and have it not be a huge deal.

Now while some might say if you’ve got it spend it, do you really have to? Does a 5-year-old really need $1500 trench coat? What happened to buying clothes that can last through the sandbox and craft table? What is a 5-year-old going to be able to do in a fluffly, feathery dress?

Good Morning America did a story on this new trend in January, so watch for yourself and think about it, if you were a parent, would you spend this money on these clothes?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/kiddie-couture-parents-worry-designer-clothing-make-hard-15438035

Whole Brain Death in Newborn Attacked by a Dog

Story located at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/02/16/calgary-airdrie-dog-baby-killed.html

Recently in the Canadian news the death of a newborn baby has been reported. The baby was taken home and was attacked by the family dog. Thedog was a husky and the family said that they had had no previous problems with it.

The family owns a dog sled industry. They offer a supply business for dog sledders. The dog that killed the child had been part of their team. They participated in dog races every year. They have a two year old child and the dogs had not shown any aggression towards this child before. The RCMP Inspector Tony Hamori says, “Unfortunately, it is just a very tragic event.”

The Emergency crew was called at about 10 a.m. on Wednesday. They then took the baby to the the Children's Hospital in Calgary, AB. He died later that day at 10:30 pm.

The officials took the dog into quarantine. They plan to talk to the family about its future. The police do not plan to charge the parents with anything. The police have not released any names so as to give the grievous parents privacy.

This is interesting because it deals with death. A subject that we discussed thoroughly in class. The baby suffered whole brain death when it lost blood flow to its head. This raises many questions for people such as: Why was the baby left alone, or What the dog was doing inside. There are answers to these but as there isn’t a lot of information on the subject I will answer these from what I think would be a proper answer.

As for “Why was the baby left alone?” The answer is probably the parents were letting the child play in a room while they were close by doing something. Such as cooking or talking on the phone. As they had said previously they had had no previous problems with the dog they had no reason to suspect it to kill the baby. The parents should not be blamed for any of this. At least until more information is let out.

To answer the question, “Why dog was aloud inside?” The dog may have been an inside dog. Although no conclusions can be drawn until more information is given this is my best guess.

Questions taken from http://www.ebrandon.ca/messagethread.aspx?message_id=595507&cat_id=13

Are Learning Differences Bad?

All learning styles are put into these three main categories: Visual, kinesthetic, and auditory. Visual learners learn best by seeing and visualizing concepts. Kinesthetic learners are most suited by doing things and putting them to practice. Auditory learners are good at listening and can get a grasp of the topic by just hearing it. Studies say that it makes it easier, and better for people with certain learning styles to be taught by teachers who accommodate specific learning styles. However, does it help them later in life?

“It’s not the strongest or the most intelligent that survive, it is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” – Darwin

People with learning style differences have more potential to be adaptive to change. Scientists like Albert Einstein, inventors like Thomas Edison, business people like Richard Branson, and statesmen like Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy all had learning style differences or disadvantages. Their teachers and mentors had never accommodated their way of learning in class and it taught them to adapt to all the learning challenges presented to them. Would these scientists, inventors, business men, statesmen be different if all their life they were accommodated in schools? I say they would be. I’m not saying that it is a bad thing to be accommodated to in class, as it will make high school much less of an ordeal socially and mentally. However I believe that students should only be given the tools to succeed instead of having special attention that spoils them.

The Super PAC

The practice of PACs has been around since the dawn of the United States. However, it has only been in the past few months of the Republican Primary that many start to question their involvement in the political system. A "P.A.C" or Political Action Committee is basically a pool of donations and investments from the largest of corporations to the average citizen. Candidate's then can access money from the PACs for financing advertisements and rallies in order to gain voters confidence. Generally the PACs are allowed to be run by the candidate and are limited by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to $5,000 per donor. This was to prevent unfair financial gain that some candidates have over others. Though in the growing American population $5,000 didn't seem enough to get votes thus gives rise to the Super PACs. Super PACs are unregulated funds that indirectly allow a candidate to tap into an ultimated amount of financing for their campaigns. Since they are not controlled by the candidate, rather his friend lawyers argue that their is technically not collaborative work happening that would violate the FEC laws. Instead the "Super PACs" would simple pay for all the merchandise, advertisements, and political rallies separately and have the candidate show up like nothing happened. The issue that raises concerns about Super PACs revoles primary around Republican front runner, Mitt Romney.

Romney's PAC receives 50 odd donors that are all Fortune 500 companies and an undisclosed amount of private citizens. ln fact the known net worth of Romney's PAC is worth around 15 million but many experts say it is probably around 40-60 million. He has used this endless supply of funds to sweep through 5 states with land slide results by filling the media with campaign adds and other political slander that persuades people to vote for him. The problem is that because Romney has all this money at his disposal he now has an unfair advantage over the other Republican Nominees. With this advantage he has gained the Front Runner status and is favored to go to the final round of elections challenging President Obama's title. The odd thing about the situation is that in the eyes of a large portion of Americans, Romney is a complete fool yet thanks to bis millions he is no able to "pay for votes" instead of earn them.

Many actions have taken place to prevent the extensive use of these Super PACs but unfortunately it is against the US Constitution for the Government to interfere (heavily) with "personal" finance because it infringes on the civil and economic liberties of citizens. The real question is does the use of Super Packs promote stable capitalistic elections in order to reach out to millions of Americans or do these funds corrupt the largest voting system on the planet?

All Creatures Great and small

Most unethical experiments that we talk about now days are usually ones about people. But we never really pause to think about all the unethical testing that is done to animals just for the greater good of humans. Just so that we can have the perfect shampoo or the right medicine that wont harm us in any way. Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research!

Agencies don't even require animal research to sell their products but they do it anyways to prove that it wont cause any harm to humans. Animal testing has been banned in many countries around the world already, so why do these companies need to continue this inhumane testing?

Why should these animals have to go through this just for us? It's not like they would ever give consent to being tested on if they had the power to communicate. Instead they suffer through being given endless drugs or having pain inflicted on them in the more unethical cases.

Every year millions of animals are poisoned, blinded, or killed by animal testing in companys search to evaluate the toxicity of the consumer products and their ingredients. Animals are forced to swallow or inhale huge quantities of the test substance, or endure the pain of a chemical eating away at their eyes or skin. With ethics its hard to compare humans and animals because we both have very different minds and bodies but this treatment shouldn't be allowed on any living creature!

A Deeper Meaning

While watching mindless T.V no one really thinks that there are any deeper meanings; however, when I was watching the regular Sunday Family Guy episode (Livin’ on a Prayer), it seemed to relate right back to having the right to live. In this episode the little boy named Scotty Jennings was refused medical treatment by his parents, because they believed that the power of God would help him defeat his cancer. 

There were some good points brought up on both sides of this argument; the parents stated they feel medical care was not necessary and they wanted to heal Scotty the way God intended. These parents legally have every right to stop their child from health care; however if a child can be saved is it morally right to decline them of that. Lois (who kidnapped Scotty to try to give him the help he needed) brought up that maybe vaccines and treatments are God’s answers to the prayers for help and people should use them to there full potential. Although the child is at a young age in this show, if he was at a more competent state would he be influenced by if parents and choose himself not to be treated or would he take the opportunity to save his own life? Everyone has the right to their own life, no matter what religion they come from; however, maybe Lois was right, maybe discovering treatments and vaccines are God’s way of helping us live fuller, longer lives.  

300,000 babies stolen from their parents in Spain

300,000 babies stolen from their parents – and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic Church in Spain


A new instigation has revealed that approximately 300,000 babies in Spain were stolen from their genuine parents over a period of five decades. The babies were bargained by a group of doctors, nurses, nuns, and priests and sold to other couples for a large sum of money, which continued until the early 1990s. According to the parents who adopted the babies, they were told that the real parents of the babies gave them up. On the other hand, the genuine parents of the babies were told that they had died during or soon after the birth and that they were not allowed to see their dead babies or attend their burials. Some of them were given the cold corpses of “their” dead babies and were disheartened. The Spanish government started regulating their adoption policies in 1987, but no nationally co-operated investigation has occurred yet.
In my opinion, this widespread practice in the Spanish hospitals neglected the principle of equality and justice and explicitly informed consent. The doctors and nurses disregarded the rights and justice of the babies and sold them in an inappropriate method. They forged the official documents as well as the signatures on the birth certificates to fake the theft and deceive the adoptive parents. The doctors also did not follow the principle of signing a fully informed consent with any of the genuine or adoptive parents. They forged and created a counterfeit birth certificate, which is not even close to receiving consents from any parents. In addition, the doctors had a paternalistic relationship with the babies’ parents, who could also be the proxy decision makers, which gave the power to the doctors to control their relationship and provided no chance for the parents to find out whether their babies were actually dead or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html

Too Dangerous in Mexico?

Each year, around 1.5 million Canadians head over to Mexico to bask in the sun and relax. Mostly everyone comes back home with a tan and a good memory but some unfortunate people end up seriously hurt or worse. The violence in Mexico is usually related to the drug trade and many parts of the country are unsafe to visit.

Recently, a Canadian women from Calgary was found brutally beaten in an elevator located in a luxurious hotel in Mexico. Sheila Nabb, her name, will have to undergo facial reconstruction surgery because several bones in her face were broken and she is in a medically induced coma. Luckily, a Mexican suspect admitted to punching the women several times in the face and leaving her in the elevator. He has been arrested and will be charged with attempted murder. The full story can be found here.

Earlier this month, another Canadian was found dead (click here). Robin Wood was from Saltspring, British Columbia and he was vacationing in Mexico when two robbers broke into a house he was staying at. He was then shot at point-blank range when he attempted to stop the robbers from stealing his possessions.

According to the Foreign Affairs Canada, 112 Canadians have been killed in accidents, murders, drowning’s, or suicides in Mexico since 2006. For more information about the people killed, click here. Throughout these past years, the violence in Mexico has escalated and the number injured or murdered tourists have risen greatly. Many people are now concerned whether Mexico is safe to visit or not. Although certain parts of Mexico are very dangerous, the other parts are not. If visiting the right places in Mexico, people should be fine and do not need to worry about being hurt.