Quality of Life

I made a short survey for euthanasia, and one of the questions were: How would you describe a quality life?

Here are some of the responses I received:

"A quality life is where an individual has some semblance of enjoyment, plesure in daily living. Where an individual has no hope of a better life, a child who will endure years of suffering simply to survive has no quality of life."

"able to physically and mentally do everything for yourself"

Any living being capable of achieving happiness."

"being surrounded by your family not matter how bad life is keep a better belief and always stick to god."

So if a life was crippling, painful, and unbearable, should it be forced to be continued with palliative care? 

I don't think anyone should be forced. I think euthanasia should be available for everyone suffering from an incurable disease/illness that restricts them from experiencing a quality life. 

One point to make is that end-of-life treatment for people who are terminally ill is extremely expensive. According to this article, the end-of-life care for a single individual at the end of their life costs an estimated $39000. That price doesn't ensure a quality life. That price gives the terminal patient a set amount of days to simply survive. 

The definition of a quality life is different for everyone. But if I was in constant pain, had to make several hospital trips, and knew I was going to die soon, I would prefer to have the option of euthanasia because that doesn't sound like a quality life to me.

-Alexis

Guns Kill People

...So why is there one sitting behind my bedroom door?

Well, I most definitely don't plan on killing anyone. 

I own a shotgun for recreational purposes (only targets- never animals), and to protect myself if I ever need it. I don't expect anything bad to happen, but who ever does? I will agree that we should rely on our police force as well as the military to defend us; however, sometimes that's just not enough. People who are in danger have to call 911, wait for police to show up, and then they can be helped. Until then, what are they supposed to do, wait? In certain situations, there is no such thing as waiting.

I completely understand the opposition to my argument. People simply wish there were less deaths. People want safety. I understand that, and I wish there were less deaths as well. But stripping people of their right to bear arms is not going to ensure safety. 

If it were illegal to own guns, clearly I would get rid of mine because I'm an American citizen who obeys the laws. However, are the criminals who own guns going to do the same? I highly doubt it. Some people don't live by the laws. If that happened, all of the innocent people would be unarmed and all of the criminals would be. 

Some may argue that countries who don't allow guns/have strict gun laws demonstrates lower crime rates, but that is not true. Statistics show, for example, that the rate of crime in the UK has actually risen since the banning of firearms.  

Evidently in the graph, the number of licensed firearm crime decreased dramatically after the gun ban, but the number of firearm and violent crime dramatically increased. If firearms were to be banned in the US, I predict that a similar outcome would take effect. 

Overall, the second amendment was made for a reason, and that is to provide the availability of firearms to citizens of the U.S. for our safety. 

What are your opinions?

Talk to you soon,

Alexis

McDonald's Whole Potato Ad

I don't know about you, but when I think of McDonald's, I think of unreal food, pink slime in their burgers, and french fries that don't spoil after a month of sitting in your car (it was an accident, okay?).

I used to see rumors all the time about McDonald's, followed by videos of their meat products being made with some sort of pink slime, and videos of people comparing the decomposition of McDonald's food versus other food.

So, when I saw this ad by McDonald's, my first thoughts were: Is it true? Are they finally trying to improve the quality of their products, or are they just trying to make people think they are?

Despite McDonald's bad rep, I believe this ad is pretty effective. Lately they've been putting an effort into advertising "real food from good suppliers", and I think it has been beneficial for them.

This ad is simple, but I think McDonald's is trying to gain a larger audience of people, like me, who think that their food is questionably "food". Their goal here is to inform us that their food isn't as bad as the media portrays. This image of a single potato carved into french fries symbolizes that McDonald's "unreal french fries" or actually made from fresh, "healthy" potatoes.

The only text that follows up with this image is "Real Good" on the bottom right, which contributes to the whole purpose of the ad: to show the audience that they have quality food.

Even though this ad didn't make me want to go eat McDonald's (it's been years), it did make me favor the company a little more than I originally had. That isn't much, but this ad was effective at portraying it's purpose. Bravo, McDonald's.

So what do you guys think? Real food, or fake?
Talk to you soon,
Alexis

Rape Victims in Africa

When I first saw this photo, it was very thought-provoking for me. At first glance, there is a mother and her son reacting to a tragedy that happened. Reading the context that comes with the picture, the photo journalist states that her son had been thrown to the ground by soldiers before they raped and beat his mother. She insisted that her son be photographed as well because she seemed to express more concern about his well being than her own.

In one of the descriptions of Muller's photographs, the text states that an African woman said, "If we go to the fields, we get raped. If we take our goods to sell in the markets, we get raped. There is danger everywhere for women."

Well, this definitely hits pathos right there. The audience, surely people who are unaware of these incidents happening daily in Africa, must feel a sense of devastation for these women. Personally, it's unbelievable to think about how people think that this is okay, or that rape is an acceptable act.

To better understand why this happens, I think it's a good idea to look at their culture and their views on women. This topic could be an entire essay by itself, but I'll keep it short: Congo, Africa is described to be "the worst place in the world for women."

The emphasis of the photo is the mother and the son. It helps that the mother and son are the main focus of the photo because the background is simple: just a blue wall in a plain room consisting of no furniture. It's hard to see the mother's face, and it's only possible to see a small portion of the boy's face as well as the wound on his head; however, it's evident that the level of emotions are high in this photo.

Why this photo is effective at getting the meaning across to the audience:

• It informs the audience of the dangers of women in parts of Africa.
• The photo is emotional and appeals to the need to nurture.
• The photo emphasizes what is important to the mother: nurturing the child in this time of distress. 

Pete Muller, the photographer, has a bio on his site that states, "I strive to create images and material that demand consideration for the lives of those depicted." This short sentence is very powerful, and I think he accomplished his goal of doing that with this beautifully portrayed photo.

Muller's site: http://www.petemullerphotography.com/#/bio 

Do Gender Roles Still Exist?

Gender roles, according to this article, are defined as "social expectations that dictate how each gender is to speak, think, act, and engage with each other.

Our society in the U.S. now, in comparison to the 1950's, has changed the expected gender roles that used to be. In the '50's, it was expected of women to be homemakers, so they stayed home and were responsible for the running of the house and raising the children. As for the men, they were in charge of being the sole providers for the family.

Although this may be the roles for many today, these expectations have been altered, and one reason is that more women are starting to have aspirations for careers.

According to this study by the Pew Research Center (as shown in the chart on the left), " Two-thirds (66%) of young women ages 18 to 34 rate career high on their list of life priorities, compared with 59% of young men."

Perhaps this is because women are feeling more empowered and capable of accomplishing things that were more dominantly done by men before. 

Furthermore, The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that in the '50's, the labor force participation rate of women was just 33.9%, and in 1998 it increased to 59.8%.

This just shows that more women want to make something of their lives besides just being an at-home mom, and that their households probably depend on the dual income from both the mom and father.

For the most part, I know some stay-at-home fathers, and I know many women who hold off on husbands for a career. However, I also know many people who conform to traditional gender roles. Either way, I believe society is being more open-minded about changes in traditional roles, and it's a good step toward gender equality.

Talk to you soon,

Alexis

Females Working for NFL Jobs

  

"You can't work for the NFL if you're a girl," declared my close friend. "only old men work for the NFL."

Needless to say, my reaction looked a little like this:

This was said to me several months ago, and since then, something spectacular happened in the NFL world that made me think of this comment immediately. The first female coach was hired, and her name is Jen 'Dr. J' Welter. She was hired by the Arizona Cardinals as a training camp intern in late July and lasted until August. Although she is yet to be hired by another NFL team, she has inspired many women who wish to do the same thing.

So, there must be some difference between her and other NFL coaches, right? Well, according to the cornerback for the Cardinals, "She fits right in. You don't even know that she's a woman when she's in there giving guys technical input."

In other words, gender doesn't define greatness. Great people- no matter what gender- define greatness. 

So, Mr. Close Friend Of Mine, still believe girls can't work for the NFL? Let's talk more.

Sonia Gysland is another inspiring female in the NFL as an athletic trainer, and is a member of the Professional Football Athletic Trainers Society (PFATS). According to this article, "she's almost impossible to keep up with."
                                                                               
Athletic training includes a wide range of duties from treating injuries on the sideline, to unloading equipment at the stadium in preparation for taping ankles or other various body parts. These duties are completely capable of getting completed by women, even though this field has been dominated by men for a long time.

Going back to the article about Grysland, she exclaimed in an interview that she thinks it's "easier for a team to hire a female when they've already done it in the past and it had worked out great."

This sounds pretty accurate, and I'm sure aspiring athletic trainers (including myself) are thanking her for leaving such a great impression as a female working in the NFL.

Consider this when going back to the quote from the beginning: "only old men work for the NFL."
Sure, men have dominated jobs for male-dominated sports for a very long time. It's just a fact. However, these slowly-appearing female faces in the NFL might just help turn that around.

Furthermore, on the site for PFATS, there is a bold statement in the scholarship section that states, "Female athletic training students are encouraged to apply." Afterall, they're looking for knowledgeable, hard-working people. Not just knowledgeable, hard-working men.

Overall, I think it's important to realize that it doesn't matter what gender you are. If you want a career in a male-dominated field, then work hard and do it. If you want a career in a female-dominated field, then work hard and do it. Gender doesn't matter.

Talk to you soon,
Alexis

High-school Teachers Filled Our Times, Not Our Minds

I know that the 16th president was Abraham Lincoln, the Pythagorean Theorem, the state capitals, the periodic table of elements, and I still remember that one poem I had to write, memorize, and recite to my English class.

However, if you ask me how to do anything like how to do my taxes, how to build good credit, or how to write a resume and cover letter, my reaction would be something like, "Ummm..."

Once I started working and going to college, all of these things were thrown at me, and my first thought was, "Why couldn't they have taught me these things?"

Instead of teachers actually teaching us valuable life skills, they are teaching us- no, making us memorize- useless information that most of us will probably never use.

Furthermore, I want to add the importance of sex education. There was no formal "sex ed" class at my school; however, it was a section we slightly talked about in Biology. It went something like this:

"Don't have sex. Here are pictures of different types of STD's. Abstinence is the best form of safe sex, so don't do it. You all are too young to have babies and STD's."

Um, what? When I was in the school's bathroom with one of my friends while she was taking a pregnancy test, I was wondering to myself, "Why hadn't they taught us, more formally, about actual safe sex?" Yeah, she shouldn't have put herself in that situation. She was one of those "stupid kids" who all of the adults complain about. But, who could blame her when she was never taught what was right?

And now, being in college, I'm thinking about how high school could have been much better. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind learning about the presidents, the states, math equations, etc; on the other hand, I truly believe that teaching the harsh truths of life should be infused with our studies and encouraged rather than the other way around.

I think the reasons behind this has a lot to do with some (quite shocking) statistics I found about the education system in Arizona. According to this article, a very low amount of tax revenue is given to education in Arizona being that the state just spent 2.5% of state GDP on education in 2012, which was nearly the lowest proportion of any state.

On average, 3.4% of state GDP is spent on education. We spent 2.5%. This is extremely shocking, but it makes sense.

If we don't spend enough money on education, how do we expect to get a quality education?

This is something serious to think about.

Talk to you soon,
Alexis

A Message to My Substitute Teacher

"College is not for everyone". This statement, exclaimed by my substitute teacher in high school, baffled me for the fact that I had never heard anyone candidly say those words. I had always heard comments such as, "college leads to success" and "college is worth it."

As high school students, we were encouraged highly to go to college, and it was weird for someone to say that they didn't want to get a higher education. However, this substitute teacher stated the opposite of everything that we had been taught in high school.

The teacher proceeded to tell us that his former student didn't do well in high school, and made the decision to not go to college. Despite his decision, he worked very hard and ended up with a nice job, and none of it required a degree.

Although what he said may have been true, I questioned what he had to say. Sure, maybe college isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the drive and aspiration to get a higher education. But what about the other side of the argument? What are the benefits of going to college and earning a degree? Why should it be considered in the first place?

Let's talk about everyone's favorite topic: money. Yes, college costs tuition, and leads many people to debt. But guess what? According to this article I found, after paying off student debt, the average college graduate earns over $800,000 more than the average high school graduate by retirement age.

I don't know about you, but that convinces me already.

Honestly, it's a bit scary to think that one day I'm going to be in debt, but also exciting to know that I'm going to be doing something that I love for the rest of my life. It will all pay off in the end. After all, like Benjamin Franklin once said, "He that can have patience can have what he will."

So, this is for you Mr. Substitute Teacher: college may not be for everyone, but those who do go will experience amazing opportunities and benefits that non-college goers will never get to encounter.

Talk to you soon,
Alexis