Ryan Neman, Marijuana Vending Machines

http://www.click2houston.com/health/15173267/detail.html

Medicinal marijuana has gotten a lot of hype in recent years. It’s interesting how the federal government makes weed illegal and clinics respond by putting weed in vending machines. Although I’m a little hesitant to the idea of getting weed as easily as getting a bag of chips, I think this vending machine is a smart idea for people who actually need marijuana. It’s faster, cheaper, and more convenient for the consumers than going to the clinic. The fingerprint identification reduces the risk of people using other people’s cards and the security guard is there to watch out for theft. On the supply side, it’s much cheaper to install a machine and hire only a security guard than open up a clinic. It’s also much safer for the workers who risk getting in trouble if there’s a raid.
On the other hand, there are people who have club cards that don’t use marijuana for medicinal purposes. I’m talking about drug dealers. In this case the new vending machine is bad because all it does is give them a convenient way to get the pot at a much cheaper price. Also, even if people do need weed medically, an ounce a week seems like a lot. The machine might lead to patients abusing the their privilege because of the convenience. It’s similar to me spending my entrée plus money at vending machines (kinda…maybe not), it’s just a swipe of a card.
Although there are many positives and negatives to the vending machine, I do think that it will last because of the cost efficiency on both sides of the market. The clinics like it, the consumers like it, and the state of government supports it. The only objections are the federal government and the people who are against medicinal marijuana in the first place.

Bluetooth Prosthetic Legs – Tarin Krzywosinski

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/25/bluetooth.legs/index.html

Today technology is absolutely amazing and things that were once unimaginable are now happening.  I remember when I was younger, my mom and dad had cell phones that were the size of my entire hand if not bigger. CD players were a big hit 5 years ago and now we have IPODs that hold over 1,000 songs. Laptops were huge and bulky, now we have Macs that are the size of a spiral bound notebook. One no longer has to be near a plug or phone jack because of wireless internet. These are just a few of the many developments that have occurred throughout our lifetime. I think about all of these things, and I realize how far and how fast technology has advanced in the last couple years.  Technology has greatly helped society as a whole, and it will continue to progress in the years to come. Everyday someone is thinking up a new concept or building some type of electronic device that can facilitate our lives. Not only has technology increased our options for luxuries, it has helped many in the medical field. Bluetooth’s prosthetic legs changed marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bleill’s life. Could you imagine going off to war in Iraq, only to return home helpless without your legs? I couldn’t even begin to think how difficult life would be without my legs. Although this is really devastating, those who are put in this situation adapt over time. Companies like Bluetooth have restored hope to amputee victims who thought they may never walk again. Now the victims can have legs, ones with batteries and sensors instead of nerves and bones. I mean, having a pair of legs that you can charge overnight like a cell phone is pretty amazing. What comes next? What else can technology do for us as a society?  Bluetooth is a company who has contributing something other than just cell phones to our society. Are other major technological companies doing the same? Corporations with the resources to work on these types of projects should continue to try to make new developments in technology. There are an infinite amount of opportunities in this field, and I am interested to see what is going to be invented within the next few years.

GOOD COP MAKES A BAD DECISION

Brian Grossman
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez20jan20,1,5340575.column?page=3&coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true

As children we are indoctrinated with the idea that police officers are here to protect and serve. They are here to help us and prevent harm to those who are innocent. In these trials of protecting law-abiding citizens police offers occasionally make brash decisions based in intuition, in order to protect their own lives. In this situation a police officer “brutally” beat a car thief who decided to run away from the police. He ran holding his chest as if he had a gun. Ultimately there was no weapon present however should a police officer risk the chance of being shot and killed on a prayer that he is only holding a little cash? The law is supposed to protect those who abide the law, and in this situation politics of race and pop culture destroyed this cops career. One may argue that he used excessive force but in actuality how can one describe this situation as “excessive” when someone is protecting their own life in attempt to drive home safely and have dinner with their families. The evolutionary concept of fight or flight is a automatic response in humans when in danger. This police officer chose to fight and protect. How can his act of altruism be considered malicious? This quote from the article sums up the entire politically view of this situation. “The rules are different” in a high-profile incident, Rice said, especially one involving a black suspect and an African American community that sees the LAPD through an 80-year prism. There were protests at the time, comparisons to the Rodney King case and a call for heads to roll.” I cannot justify the actions of this police officer however it is clear that the politics surrounding the Los Angeles police department prevent cops from taking absolute necessary actions due to race and socio economic backgrounds.

9-1-1…reliable? (Amanda Gehrke)

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/METRO/801190357/1408/LOCAL

When we were kids, our parents and teachers drilled the numbers 9-1-1 into our heads. We even had school assemblies teaching us which situations warranted the emergency number and what we should say when we called it. While all of this information was important, the one thing I really took away from the education was that once you dialed those magic numbers, even if you just simply dialed and set the phone down, help would come. I have always found comfort in this fact. Unfortunately, I was deceived, as was five-year-old Robert Turner. I am sure he received the same education and reassurance that I did-he listened to his parents, he went to the assemblies, and he practiced dialing the numbers-and when the time came to utilize all of his ‘training,’ he did everything right. Robert Turner came through for his mom. This system, however, did not.

        Because of this 9-1-1 operator’s mistake, a five-year-old boy is without a mother. While I do believe it was ultimately her decision to deceive Robert Turner (telling him there was help on the way) there is a possibility that her judgment was skewed by factors that were out of her control. Among these are her training, her co-workers, and her previous experience with prank calls. These are factors that could affect all operators, potentially creating an incompetent emergency system that lacks the capacity to (indirectly) save lives. It scares me to think that in a world filled with so much fear we must now doubt our trust in the only true help line we have.

        Will the emergency operators eventually become completely unreliable? Will calling 9-1-1 no longer ensure help? Has the system already reached this point? With all of the illness, injury, and disease in this country, I sure as hell hope not.

Mock Death – Is this for real? (Varun Sarna)

Article Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/01/13/mock.funerals.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview 

          Mock funerals, what a concept. What a joke! As I read through this article I found myself wondering what the world has come to. In a day and age when war plagues our society and soldiers risk their lives overseas, one of the top 10 most read articles on CNN is titled “Mock funerals give ‘dearly departed’ new outlook on life.” Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that getting nailed into a coffin is going to give anyone a new outlook on life. Sure, it might scare the shit out of you and make you want to attempt a Kill Bill-like stunt where Uma Thurman somehow manages to dig through her grave, but it’s not going to do anything but scare you.  

          Now don’t get me wrong, I’m questioning the idea of personal reevaluation – I think that it’s noble. But I most certainly do not believe that the method of carrying out this “rebirth” is reasonable at all. I think that critics are probably correct in saying that it’s just another money-making idea by companies who are willing to do anything to make profits and earn respect from partners.

          I feel like the followers of this idea are being fooled into believing what I think is a bunch of bullshit. Sure, live every day like it’s your last, but don’t get nailed into a coffin. Enjoy life for what it is and take action to fix your past wrongs or correct what you may feel are any imperfections in your life. I think that getting yourself nailed in a coffin and pretending to be dead and reading a fake will makes a mockery out of death. It’s just hard for me to believe that people are willing to go through with this kind of stuff with any real expectations. I can see how a brush with death might change your outlook on life and force you to re-evaluate what you’ve done in the past, but is it really realistic to imagine being dead and expect that to help you? I certainly don’t think so, but feel free to refute and enlighten my limited perspective.

Nikhil Sharma – America’s Political System

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html

Throughout history, politicians have always spent money on their campaigns and getting voters to come to the polls and vote for them. This practice occurs in many other fields such as sports where coaches campaign for their players to win awards such as the Heismann, and in society where many social activists will campaign for reform. However, the practice of campaigning in politics is essentially ruining our countries political system and holding our country back.

CNN.com ran this interesting feature where they showed side by side how much money each candidate has received, spent, and currently has. I honestly was shocked when I read the amount of money involved in these “campaigns.” Mitt Romney has received about $63 million while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have received about $91 million and $80 million, respectively. Raising this kind of money for a campaign is ridiculous. There has to be a line between where an individual is simply raising money and when it turns into a business. I think that the process of “campaigning” for presidency has truly become the business of running for president. What is wrong with this is that candidates who do not receive the kind of money that the top money makers do are not heard of. They have no real way to let the American people know about what they have to offer. How many people have even heard of candidates such as Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter? These candidates could be the best but nobody would even know. Many potential candidates and their ideas are not even being heard or recognized due to this discrepancy in money. These candidates have not received enough money to put out ad campaigns on the TV and radio like Romney and Clinton can. In fact this lack of exposure has led many candidates to simply drop out of the race such as Sam Brownback, Joe Bidden and Chris Dodd.

Another major disadvantage to our current system is that it supports lobbyists. Candidates, while running for presidency, will take large sums of money from lobbyists and special interest groups in order to win because as I mentioned before, if a candidate does not have the money they are unable to garner support and exposure. When they win the candidacy then they are tied to these lobbyists and are in essence forced to support bills that they know they shouldn’t. One example of this is the oil company lobbyists that have successfully lobbied Washington and till this day suppressed major innovation in cleaner, environmentally safe technology. Lobbyists have also been able to suppress universal health care that many other countries such as Canada, France, and Britain have very successfully implemented and this has caused our countries health care system to fall to 37^th in the world.

This whole political system is holding our country back and stalling our country’s potential.