Juiced Post 2

As I continue to read Juiced by Jose Canseco, I continue to read more things that I already knew but I also read thing that I have not learned before. In the recent chapters Canseco has talked about something that I had to do a lot of research on for my senior project in english, and that is BALCO. BALCO stands for Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operatvie. BALCO, founded in 1984 by Victor Conte, was originally used to make sure that athletes mainted the right vitamin and mineral count by using blood and urine test. Conte discovered that he could create a steroid that was undetectable by drug tests. BALCO began distributing steroids to many high profile ahtletes including Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi. This was talked about by Canseco in Juiced. The raid of BALCO in 2003 was also described in the book. The book is really heating up because this is when he comes out and says that both Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds took steroids, both are not shocking but allegations they are. These allegations led to them appearing in court and so-on, we all know what is going on with Barry Bonds. I am going to read a few more chapters and then I'll get back to the blog, I will make one more post to conclude the book, and then I will be done with senior year.

Juiced post 1

Juiced is a book that written by Jose Canseco that came out in 2005. It led to the huge drama about steroids in baseball. To go along with my issues class topic, and for all of the doubters in my class, Jose Canseco goes ahead in the first few chapters to talk about this specific topic; "One of Juiced's central precepts is that steroid use is not in fact a bad thing, as long as the person is being monitored by a physician, and the dosages are small". In class today, during my presentation I had specific questions regarding this specific issue, including Mr. Kramer asking me a question about it as he went on to rip my presentation to shreads. From the mouth of Steroid Expert, Jose Canseco, "steroids can not only improve the game of baseball, but also improve and lengthen our lives". He also argues that steroid myths are false and that they can help you recover from injury quicker. So for all the haters out there who were not sold by my presentation, you should be sold if you read Juiced. The first few chapters mostly deal with his life before he got into steroids, about how he got caught up in all of the fame. I cannot wait to see what I read next, I will keep you updated.

High School steroid testing

I do not believe that their should be testing in high school for steroids for a number of reasons. First off, it is an expensive waste because the amount of people you are actually going to catch doing a "random" drug test is slim and not worth all the trouble. Also, I do not believe that steroids, when managed, are bad for you. There are so many people who have taken steroids and their health has not been effected by it. If you take steroids for one cycle like what Alex Rodriguez did in high school then there really is no harm, it becomes harmful when you start abusing them. If athletic coaches and trainers are trained on how to use steroids properly, I see no reason why they can't be legal.

Why Not Take Steroids?

After watching a few videos on youtube of testimonies and high school coaches and trainers, i truly believe that if you can manage your steroid intake at a healthy rate, then why not take steroids. I read "A-Rod: The many lives of Alex Rodriguez" amd he took steroids as a sophmore at Westminister Christain. Look at where it got him, I don't see him having any health problems. Sure, he got caught, but that was the second time. Why not take them through one cycle get really good and then not use them again. Like I said if you can manage it in a healthy way and you are aware of the risks then why should they be illegal. This one video that I watched was of a high school baseball coach adressing the issue of steroids. He made a point of saying that they are illegal and that is why he believes they should not be taken. However, he did say that they should be made legal because steroids can be controlled that way. It is something where in baseball if you hit .220 then it will make you a .280 hitter, which in the major leagues is a difference between a few million dollars. That is where I am right now with my thinking, obviously as a high school athlete is too risky to take steroids because of random drug testing, plus playing in college next year, u are automatically tested, so its not worth. I think if steroids were ever made legal, then that is something to think about, but I am not there yet. This is strictly for project research and my research is showing reasons why steroids aren't such a bad thing.

Are Student Athletes Taking Steroids? Re:

Earlier today an article in the Huffington Post came out with some information and stats about student athletes and steroids. According to the CDC about 11 percent of high school males that play a sport are using steroids. This is a very high number of students using steroids because of the obvious risks of using them. Steroids cause problems on the liver, increase chances of heart attack, and cause depression and suicidal thoughts. They found that students are taking steroids because they believe that famous professional athletes are taking them. The numbers that are shocking to me is that in 2002 only 57% of high school athletes believed that steroids were bad for you. This number should be much higher, I am not sure whether it is because they are not educated on the risks of taking steroids or because they see all of the pros benefit from it, but something needs to be done. Two things should be done, 1) make sure they are banned from all pro sports so these athletes will start setting a good example for the people who look up to them, and 2) start educating teens in health classes about the risk of Performance Enhancing Drugs. If you want to read the full article the link is posted below. There will be more posts about steroids to come in the next couple of weeks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-whyte-md-mph/student-athletes-steroids_b_850952.html

Race In America

Hello blog. Race in America is a very important issue. Lately we have been talking about race issues in America as well as reading many articles from CNN. We also read passages from writers Andrew Hacker and Tom Wise. It is important that every race and ethnicity is accepted in our culture. The days of "White America" are long behind us. It may strike most people that racism still exists in our country, but it does not really strike me. People may just not be as verbal about it. I read this one article that was about wasting our energy on racism. Hacker and Wise are both white, and while they probably threw the entire race under the bus in their articles, it is true when they explained that most whites would probably prefer to have blacks seperated. It is a sad truth. People won't say this, but according to Hacker, they are thinking it. In the article I read about wasting energy on racism, the writer explains that there are much more important things to use our energy on, like helping Japan with their crisis. He said that we need to drop everything and fix the planet. It needs to be a communal effort. I agree with this, it doesn't matter black or white, it is a waste of our time and energy to be focused on racism. There are more important things that we could be doing. We could be fighting to save the children in Africa from becoming abducted soldiers instead of focusing on race. I don't want to be like Hacker throwing my race under the bus by writing in a book every prejiduce there is against blacks, and I don't want to be like Wise and explain all of the advantages and privilages that whites have, but I do want to say that the effort could be better. Although there aren't people openly being racist, there are people who think it. Thinking it and not saying it is still wrong, those thoughts shouldn't exist.

What's Going on in the World?

Wisconsin is in a state of concern. Like the NFL, it seems they are also having a problem with collective bargaining. Unlike the NFL, this is something that has escalated into protests and demonstrations. The people of Wisconsin have been protesting the Governor's budget bill, which would deny collective bargaining to union workers. The people of Wisconsin feel like they are being attacked by this bill and that this is a bill that is taking from the lower and middle classes and giving to the upper class. The bill is allowing the governor to profitize by selling state owned facilites to private entities. The G.O.P. is trying to bust up the unions and cover it up by saying it is budget balancing according to Paul Krugman's article "Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.". The point Krugman is trying to make in this article is that this bares resemblence to Iraq in 2003 when President Bush appointed their new leaders based on what he said to be for "loyalty and political reliability". This has gotten to the point that Wisconsin Democrats fleed to Illinois to get away from all of this. 14 democratic law makers of Wisconsin had been taking refuge in the Northern Illinois area. They were being overwhelmed by the number of bills trying to be passed that they felt the only way they could slow it down was to get up and leave, and so they did. The protests had started in Wisconsin but they have also emerged in Indiana and Ohio. Monica Davey reports in her article "Life on the Run For Democrats in Union Fights" states that "Those left in Madison this week, supporters of Gov. Scott Walker's plan to limit collective bargaining and cut benefits, agreed to a brand new rule about paychecks. Direct deposits to senators' bank accounts are now barred for anyone who misses two or more days of the legislative session. Those who wish to be paid their salary must collect their checks in person, on the Senate floor." This is bad news bears for those on the run because they are not going to be present to collect their paychecks if this keeps up.
The NFL is in a state of crisis at the moment, and that is if the union and the owners cannot come to an agreement within the next eight hours there is going to be a work stoppage and a lockout. That is what is going on right now in Wisconsin, there is a work stoppage. The owners in the NFL are mad because they think the players are greedy, and the players are mad because they think the owners are greedy. They are no where close to a settlement. We get that feeling about Wisconsin. They are already in a work stoppage. Union workers have already started protesting. The unions in Wisconsin feel that the governor is being too greedy. Which is true. He is trying to cover up his chances of profitizing by destroying unions and saying it is for fiscal purposes. This is a load of crap. His plan is to sell all of the power plants and heating and cooling companies to independents like the Koch brothers to make him a lot of money. He created a 144 page bill to hide all of the underlying details.
I am not claiming to be some expert on unions and if they are needed or not, but it seems that it happens a lot when there are unions who do not get along with the other side. I am not saying that it is the unions fault or the other sides fault always. In this case it seems as if it is the governor's fault because he is clearly just trying to make more money out of this. In the NFL, though, I think both the NFLPA (union) and the owners are both to blame. They cannot come to an agreement because neither side is willing to compromise. Nobody is ever going to get everything they want, so there always needs to be a compromise. Again, comparing this to Wisconsin, the unions of Wisconsin and the governor need to compromise. I do not know how they can do that because, like I state earlier, I am no expert on this topic, but the only solution is to compromise. It seems that in both scenarios the sides are on two completley different ends of the spectrum, and it has to be about negotiating. The only way to fix a problem is to sit down and talk it out. Each side states what they want and then bargain. This is the best and the most diplomatic way to do things.

Mock Trial Response

Hello Blog, here is my reaction to the trials we just did.
Case 1:
Elyse Roberts vs. the District of Columbia is a civil case about sexual harrasment charges in work place. It was about an alleged case of sexual harrasment where office mates, one male and one female did not get along. The trial took us four days and the outcome was that the District of Columbia was guilty of the sexual harrasment charges in a 10-1 vote. I did not agree with the result of this trial for a few reasons. Yes, it was made clear that Elyse Roberts was a poor lawyer and that she deserved to be transferred. The fact that she was transferred was a remedy to the situation, indirectly. The reason I disagree with the jurors decision was because they based all of their judgments off of the expert witness, and Phd with a background in sexual harrasment in the workplace. The problem with this is that he only talked to just the plaintiff. He never got to hear from key witnesses like Fran Troy or Sandy Yu. Never even got to hear from the accused, Kevin Murphy. I think the fact that our class is a sympathetic one is the reason for this outcome. Our jury was one that sympathized with the victim and I knew this going into the trial because in our last set of cases that had to do with the death penalty it was very rare that our class chose to give someone the death penalty. I think the facts that set everyone over the edge were that he hung up pictures from a swimsuit magazine and wrote Elyse's name on it. Also, that Fran Troy and Sandy Yu did not attempt to do anything besides handle it informally by talking to Kevin. One other thing that made Kevin Murphy look bad was that he was always making jokes with some sort of sexual reference to them, whether it be about her and him, or a joke about gays, but I still didn't think this was enough to make him a sexual harraser. He was just joking around and nobody else was offended. I would have needed a little more to change my opinion. I would have needed to know that his words started turning into actions, or that she was fired because of this.
Case 2:
In the case of U.S vs David Jones, the victim, Susan Williams claimed rape against her then boyfriend, David Jones. This was very one-sided case and it seemed the entire time the jury had one thought on their minds... innocent. That happened to be the outcome, and it was unanimous. There were just a lot of facts that did not add up, or the prosecution did not get them out because it did not make sense why this guy would rape her. He had no motive. Yes, it was true that Susan Williams was withholding sex from him because she didn't want to get hurt, but they had had sex three weeks prior to this event and it seemed like a reasonable idea that he might have been able to again. Things like her saying no, but continuing to kiss, threw this case for the prosecution. The fact that she didn't leave until like 10 or 15 minutes later. Another thing that was made aware was that Susan Williams didn't even consider this rape until the school counselor put this idea into her head. That was enough for me to say it wasn't rape. To change my view I would have needed some sort of circumstantial evidence that would have made it clear that she was raped. It is not enough to just have her testimony and an expert witness who only met with her. The character witnesses for David Jones proved that he is no rapist.
I think sexual harrasment is something that is pretty much ignored. It is something that people just turn away from and pretend not to know that it is going on. I think what people need to know about sexual harassment is that it is very serious and that it follows you around once you are charged with it. I really don't think DHS has a problem with sexual harrassment just because of the environment that we live in and how we were brought up. Rape is also a very serious offense, and if you are charged with it, then you will most likely get jail time. I think the thing that the second trial did the best was show that you need to just take things one step at a time and if you are getting mixed signals stop and talk. The whole thing about the Susan kissing him but also saying no was misleading to David because he thought she was being playful like she had been in the past. I will leave you with what Kramer told us on the way out of class that day, probably some of the best advice you will ever need, he said to us "if there is anything I want you to come away from this trial is that... No means no, just ask if you can have sex." Then on the way out class he reiterated it to me and a few buddies by just simply putting "remember, no means no, just ask". This is great advice because if you ever get into a situation like that with a girlfriend, you should hold up for a second and ask because if you end up going to far she might want to charge you for rape. Rape is not a big issue at DHS, just like sexual harrasment, because it just doesn't happen here because of how we are brought up. It is not something that we are really worried about.

State of the Union

Hey blog, its been awhile, and I know it is a little late to being doing a post about the state of the union that president Obama made, but I just remembered that I forgot to make a post on this and luckily enough I took detailed notes about it. I think the two main things that should be talked about in regards to this years state of the union are that the democrats and the republicans sat together, and the shooting in Arizona. The shooting in Arizona was a big deal at the time of this because as we have all heard by now there was a congresswoman who was a victim of this. It should be mentioned that the republicans and democrats were sitting together for the first time instead of their usual seating arrangment where the republicans sit on one side and the democrats on the other side. I think this was a better way to do it because the president was able to make a speech that had a really good flow to it. He wasn't interupeted every time he said something by clapping from one side or the other.
The two things that were talked about most were the job situation and the education proposal. I liked what we Obama had to say, about how more teachers are needed, and that teachers need to put a full commitment into their teaching to make the students better and the economy better. He said that there is a need for teachers which a) will make our education better, if the teachers are good and b) give more jobs to people who need them.
The one thing I did not like about his state of the union was that he was up there telling us everything he wanted to change, but did not explain to us on how he planned to change it. I think that is something important that everyone wants to know. Sure, we all want to hear that the education system is going to get better, but how are you going to make it better so we actually believe that it will. A lot of what he says is just to get approval of everyone, and when you do that you tend to make a lot of people unhappy because you are trying to make everyone happy. He has two jobs he has to do, he has to work on getting America better and he also has to campaign for the next election. I think this was the problem he fell into, he was trying to win votes during his state of the union by making everyone happy. He should have just told us where the problems stood, and how he planned on fixing them.

6th post?

Apparently we need a sixth... and final blog post about our book. Even though I about 99% positive Mr. Kramer told us we only needed 5 even though the sheet said 6.  Well although I already made my closing post a post early I might as well say some more of the repetitive things I keep saying. This one is going to be brief. Basically, if there is anything I have learned from reading Under the Banner of Heaven, it is this. Never move to Utah, they will try and convert you. They try and persuade you by saying that they are one of the lost tribes of Israel and that they are brothers to the Jewish people. LIES. They are brothers to the people over in those Lunatic Asylums. That is really how I would compare them. People always believe that they are entering to get help and the end result will be good, people always try to leave, and they always keep dragging you back in. Its the truth, haven't you ever seen Shutter Island. Haha, obviously I am exaggerating a little bit, but when looking back on what I read all of the stories were about people who wanted to get out of the religion... not get in. We owe that to Krakauer being pretty good at his job of investigative journalism. Putting aside the past. The past is the past, Joseph Smith was, and now he isn't. Looking at the LDS and FLDS of today's world, it is not a religion you would want to get caught up in. It is a religion that relies on violence and incest. It is a religion that when you read between the lines you read DANGER. Maybe that is just Krakauer's point, but he is very good at what he does and is very well known, so I am guessing that he knew what he was doing when he wrote the book.

Under the Banner of Heaven: Final Post

After finishing Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, I have very mixed opinions about the Mormon religion. I believe that LDS (Latter Day Saints) is a more normal religion than the FLDS (fundamentalists). They definetly do not put the 'fun' in 'fundamentalists'. The LDS practice their religion the way it was meant to be, not harming anybody, just going on there way, being a part of everyday normallity in the United States. However, the FLDS practices a much more gross mormon practice. They are isolated from the rest of the country in there little compounds, they home school their kids, and they believe in plural marriage. If you do not follow the rules you will be banished from the religion forever and never be allowed to speak to your family again. We learn this through stories much like the ones of the Lafferty Brothers, Rulon Jeffs, and the Elizabeth Smart kidnapper. A lot of the things they take part in is a gross misconduct of the law. Putting aside the fact that a lot of these "prophets" have way too many wives, most of the time when they are married into the family they are under the legal age. Most of these women have been raped before the age of 16, and most of these women have kids by that age. Incest is also a very common practice in this religion. Very often you get the daughters marrying their fathers' brothers. When they question why their son or daughter has disabilities, the logical reasoning is because of incest, but not their logic. Their logic is that God was punishing them for something they did wrong in the past.

My father summed the religion up for me very nicely. Joseph Smith was given a commandment from God. This commandment was delivered by an angel. The Angel's name was Moroni. The Angel Moroni delivered the commandment that told Joseph Smith to start the mormon religion. My dad summed it up by saying this, "If you drop the I from Moroni's name, you get Moron. The 'Angel Moron' was the basis for the whole religion. Morons created the religion. A religion by Morons for Morons." Now you might think that my dad was being a little harsh here. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The truth does not lie though, you read what I read, then maybe you will come to terms and see it my way. The mormon religion is a very interesting religion to learn about, and it is good for a laugh every now and then. The big issue with this religion is that it breaks a lot of laws, and I believe that was the point of me reading this book, to determine what should come first, the laws or the religion. There is a way of practicing this religion right, and the way the FLDS practice it, is not the right way. They should take some notes on how the LDS practice it, they do it the right way. There is obviously a growing concern with this religion and how the women of the mormon religion are treated, and it is something that everybody should be aware of. I believe that the only way you can make a strong argument and a valid opinion on this topic is to do some research and read the book for yourself.

Until next time...

Under the Banner of Heaven Post 4 of 5

After my latest reading, there are really just two things I feel the need to touch upon; the craziness of Dan Lafferty and Joseph Smith.
Dan Lafferty was an LDS Mormon, he believed in the practices of Mormon and lived a fairly normal life besides the fact that he was a Mormon. At some point when he went to a church meeting in his small town in California he decided it would be a good idea to change the way he practiced. He turned off all of the gas and electricity in house, pulled his kids out of school, and took on his step-daughter as his second wife. This is a JOKE! I know that is what he believes and all, but, come on, this is the silliest thing I've heard. Wait, it gets better though. He started treating his kids when they were ill.... by prayer and herbal remedies. He even birthed his own child and did the circumsition himself.
I feel that when reading this book, with being how great it is, it is making me more and more stupid by even thinking about the beliefs.
Here is why:
Joseph Smith explained to his followers that God had told him two things. One; the Garden of Eden was actually in a town in Northwest Missouri, and not in the Middle East. Two; he told him that Jesus would soon walk again in this place. Upon recieving this messasge, Smith told everyone that they should move the religion to this place and think of it as a New Jerusalem. Smith made enemies in Missouri, a lot of them. To the point where they had to move from place to place to avoid mobs of death. Eventually, after being arrested and escaping from jail, they moved back to Illinois, where he became a prominent politician. Again as he did in Missouri though, he made more enemies, which lead to his untimely death. He was in jail when a mob came at him and shot him and shot him some more. Joseph Smith believed that he was the second coming of Mohammed to the Muslims. I laughed when I read this.
Stay tuned for the final post.

Under the Banner of Heaven Post 3 out of 5

Let me just start this post of by explaining how the "Book of Mormon" was written. Joseph Smith looked into a hat filled with golden plates and a peeping stone. When he looked into a hat he saw a phrase of words and had his scribe write it down. He did this over and over again until the "Book of Mormon" was completely written. However crazy Smith might have been, he was convincing enough to get people to follow him. Krakauer in the chapters that I have most recently read explains how the Mormon religion was created and the meaning of why it is called Latter Day Saints. The reason that the religion is called Latter Day Saints is because according to Smith and the Book of Mormon, God had chose them to be the sons and daughters and that they would be needed in the time of the millenium. Smith called these sons and daughters of the mormon religion, Latter Day Saints. He explains of how when Smith was a young boy in Palmyra, when he was excited by black magic, he went to this girls house who had peeping stones, and went out to find peeping stones of his own. It also explains of this big party they have at the most sacred place in the religion. The Hill Cumorah. The gathering, supposed to be a tool of conversion, really has in attendance of people about 90 percent of them are already practicing mormons. At this gathering they do an entire recreation of the creation of the religion. There was one thing that did catch my attention about this gathering. Krakauer explains what goes on there and in doing so he says the smell of marijuana smoke. This has me curious because I would have just assumed that the use of drugs of any sort, being tobacco, alcohol, or others, would be illegal in the religion and grounds for being thrown out of the religion. Again, as I have stated in the first two posts, this book is very interesting and I do reccomend it, The investigative journalism of Krakauer gets so deep its almost creepy how much he does. It adds for a great and exciting read.